Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code(blog.joinmastodon.org)
blog.joinmastodon.org
Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2021/10/trumps-new-social-media-platform-found-using-mastodon-code/
550 comments
No, unlike trademark law, copyright law does not require consistent enforcement to maintain. (Copyright law is the basis of the license.)
Also, stating a bias does not imply selective enforcement. I don’t think there are many examples of mastodon instances breaching the terms of the license, and certainly not at this scale.
Also, stating a bias does not imply selective enforcement. I don’t think there are many examples of mastodon instances breaching the terms of the license, and certainly not at this scale.
In general, you don't have any obligation to enforce your rights.
There is the well-known exception of trademark law, but that's in the nature of the matter. If PepsiCo sells Coca-Cola and the Coca-Cola company doesn't react, then the trade mark obviously doesn't allow customers to identify genuine Coca-Cola.
There is the well-known exception of trademark law, but that's in the nature of the matter. If PepsiCo sells Coca-Cola and the Coca-Cola company doesn't react, then the trade mark obviously doesn't allow customers to identify genuine Coca-Cola.
Your example seems a bit off. Yes, Coca-cola is not required to enforce their trademark via legal means; however, they may lose the ability to prove infringement of the mark later (even in another case) if they do not police use of the mark. I think there was also a case or course of legal thought by some judges that the mark's owner owed a duty (fiduciary maybe?) to actively protect the mark from infringement or risk losing the trademark rights altogether.
You don't have an obligation and in theory (and only in theory) it doesn't matter but a history of doing it anyway sure as shit helps in court.
Go to YouTube. You will find lots of old BBC stuff; the BBC largely doesn’t bother with active enforcement for anything before 1980 or so.
Now, start a website selling Doctor Who episodes, and see how far your incomplete enforcement argument gets you with the court.
Now, start a website selling Doctor Who episodes, and see how far your incomplete enforcement argument gets you with the court.
That is still consistent enforcement of the Doctor Who copyrights though.
Does it? This is the first I've heard of it.
Theoretically no, but the court is more likely to side with you if your lawyer can go down the list checking off each reason this lawsuit is like the last one that you won.
So actually no, then? It actually won't be held against your case. It's just that you don't have a template yet, you don't have a precedent?
Yeah, that's entirely completely different.
Yeah, that's entirely completely different.
I think this question was decided by SCOTUS in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.:
In a 6-3 ruling, Justice Ginsburg declared that laches cannot be invoked as a bar to pursuing a claim for damages brought within §507(b)'s three-year window. However, in extraordinary circumstances, laches may curtail the relief equitably awarded at the very outset of litigation,
In a 6-3 ruling, Justice Ginsburg declared that laches cannot be invoked as a bar to pursuing a claim for damages brought within §507(b)'s three-year window. However, in extraordinary circumstances, laches may curtail the relief equitably awarded at the very outset of litigation,
In case anyone doesn't know what laches is:
>In common law legal systems, laches (/ˈlætʃɪz/ "latches", /ˈleɪtʃɪz/}; Law French: remissness, dilatoriness, from Old French laschesse) is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_%28equity%29?wprov=sfla...
>In common law legal systems, laches (/ˈlætʃɪz/ "latches", /ˈleɪtʃɪz/}; Law French: remissness, dilatoriness, from Old French laschesse) is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_%28equity%29?wprov=sfla...
A side note: Thank you for using phonetic transcription in IPA. This is very rare and I really don’t understand why it is not used more often.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_transcription#
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_transcription#
Would the latches doctrine really apply to separate enforcement cases though? My understanding is that doctrine would prevent me from enforcing my rights against a particular actor if I wait too long to enforce those rights… but waiting too long against one actor wouldn’t be relevant if I seek to enforce those rights against a separate actor in a separate case.
You have the correct instinct. Laches (not latches, it really is a different word) is about a specific cause so it only helps if you've got a reasonable case that the plaintiff should have noticed this cause ages ago. If the cause is new that's obviously not going to work.
Thanks! That’s what I thought. It’s been a minute since law school and my in-house brain has been steadily leaking for some years.
I think the other factor is scale. If I copy Mastodon and violate ALL conditions of the license, no one will care. This version will get 100Ks of users and as such is prominent in people's mind as a "just like Mastodon" clone. People will form opinions on Mastodon based on this implementation.
That trademark stuff is an excuse for wealthy litigious companies, it isn't actually how the law works and we should stop giving them a pass.
Disney, Nintendo and similar outfits can afford to go after people who weren't causing them any harm and so they do.
Disney, Nintendo and similar outfits can afford to go after people who weren't causing them any harm and so they do.
> it isn't actually how the law works and we should stop giving them a pass.
That’s not accurate. Trademark law does require active policing and enforcement, and failure to enforce a trademark can be grounds for losing it.
Yes, big corps probably are more aggressive than the law requires, but it’s a pretty fuzzy, not super well defined, line.
That’s not accurate. Trademark law does require active policing and enforcement, and failure to enforce a trademark can be grounds for losing it.
Yes, big corps probably are more aggressive than the law requires, but it’s a pretty fuzzy, not super well defined, line.
> That’s not accurate. Trademark law does require active policing and enforcement, and failure to enforce a trademark can be grounds for losing it.
Do you have some actual examples of this? Trademarks which were cancelled not for lack of use (a real reason) but for lack of enforcement ? I don't think that's a thing, which is why I'm asking.
It's true that genericisation is at least a potential threat, although I think many businesses would say that's a great problem to have (your mark can't become generic if people aren't familiar with it, and if they're familiar with it that means you sure have sold a whole lot of product, the real examples of genericisation are famous successful companies such as Xerox or Hoover, hardly stories of failure).
But also this isn't about genericisation anyway. Mere mentions aren't actionable. That's what is insidious about it, you can sue people who are no threat to your mark at all, and the likes of Disney do that all the time. But you can't (successfully) sue people who mention your mark in a way that just contributes to eventual genericisation.
Do you have some actual examples of this? Trademarks which were cancelled not for lack of use (a real reason) but for lack of enforcement ? I don't think that's a thing, which is why I'm asking.
It's true that genericisation is at least a potential threat, although I think many businesses would say that's a great problem to have (your mark can't become generic if people aren't familiar with it, and if they're familiar with it that means you sure have sold a whole lot of product, the real examples of genericisation are famous successful companies such as Xerox or Hoover, hardly stories of failure).
But also this isn't about genericisation anyway. Mere mentions aren't actionable. That's what is insidious about it, you can sue people who are no threat to your mark at all, and the likes of Disney do that all the time. But you can't (successfully) sue people who mention your mark in a way that just contributes to eventual genericisation.
> Do you have some actual examples of this?
It's a good question, and I don't specifically. I've heard this advise from lawyers in various different fields (not specifically Trademark lawyers), but when I go digging for examples, or the specific legislative history, most of my searching ends with "there's no a clear, definitive case on this topic".
So, in a lot of ways, I think you're right to challenge this assertion. It seems more like a recommendation that comes from "an abundance of caution" rather than a clear legal ruling, but I think I was wrong when I definitely stated that "trademark law does require active policing and enforcement". It seems like it might be more accurate to say: "some lawyers believe trademark law may require active policing and enforcement"
It's a good question, and I don't specifically. I've heard this advise from lawyers in various different fields (not specifically Trademark lawyers), but when I go digging for examples, or the specific legislative history, most of my searching ends with "there's no a clear, definitive case on this topic".
So, in a lot of ways, I think you're right to challenge this assertion. It seems more like a recommendation that comes from "an abundance of caution" rather than a clear legal ruling, but I think I was wrong when I definitely stated that "trademark law does require active policing and enforcement". It seems like it might be more accurate to say: "some lawyers believe trademark law may require active policing and enforcement"
Thanks.
> some lawyers believe trademark law may require active policing and enforcement
That's definitely true. Of course we might observe that it sure is convenient that Trademark lawyers believe you should hire more Trademark lawyers... If this is their honest belief then even if it wasn't true they aren't committing fraud since fraud requires dishonesty. So that's nice.
> some lawyers believe trademark law may require active policing and enforcement
That's definitely true. Of course we might observe that it sure is convenient that Trademark lawyers believe you should hire more Trademark lawyers... If this is their honest belief then even if it wasn't true they aren't committing fraud since fraud requires dishonesty. So that's nice.
Though it should be noted that a Trademark is different from typical Copyright law. One is inherited from the other, yet cannot stand alone from it.
Can you point to a case of someone violating mastadon's license and them not pursuing it?
I'm not sure they have a weak history, though. They enforced their license just as aggressively against Gab.
If they had noted a legal enforcement, it would have sounded like threatening. They did the right thing and just noted the problem for now. Maybe the other party will fix the infringement and close the issue.
It depends perhaps on whether it ends up in anti-SLAPP or something like that. But if, for example, you don't sue a hospital for showing your film to a group of children, but you do sue a school, the fact you didn't sue the hospital probably doesn't matter too much, even though your bias is against caretakers of healthy children as opposed to sick children.
Not a legal opinion, of course.
Not a legal opinion, of course.
SLAPP is a mechanism to short-circuit certain attacks on freedom of speech, it has nothing to do with intellectual property.
> If Mastodon has a weak history of enforcing their license to other organizations, does it weaken the case?
No; it’s normal for copyright violation to be selectively enforced. There are a very few rights bodies who enforce for everything (notably, the movie industry tends to do this) but in general copyright holders only go after big offenders.
No; it’s normal for copyright violation to be selectively enforced. There are a very few rights bodies who enforce for everything (notably, the movie industry tends to do this) but in general copyright holders only go after big offenders.
The near universal agreement here (from non-lawyers) that lack of past enforcement won’t affect future enforcement is a signal to me that it actually might.
Expecting Donald Trump to observe the rules and norms that are not strictly enforced is extremely naive. He thinks only suckers do that. What does he do? He ignores all of that and gets ahead.
That's why I call people like him "termites of civilization". They slowly eat at the foundation, until the society itself collapses. We are already seeing it. The pandemic of selfishness and shamelessness, and overwhelming rudeness toward each other. Just look at what the service industry has to put up with - and it all came directly from the top. Donald Trump let everyone know that the rules are NOT for them, that it is totally OK to be a shit-tier human.
That's why I call people like him "termites of civilization". They slowly eat at the foundation, until the society itself collapses. We are already seeing it. The pandemic of selfishness and shamelessness, and overwhelming rudeness toward each other. Just look at what the service industry has to put up with - and it all came directly from the top. Donald Trump let everyone know that the rules are NOT for them, that it is totally OK to be a shit-tier human.
So weird that everything started collapsing exactly on January 20th, 2017.
The people who have been in power for 40 years are definitely NOT the problem. It was just that last guy.
The people who have been in power for 40 years are definitely NOT the problem. It was just that last guy.
If both-side-ism makes you feel better than everyone else. It didn't start collapsing in 2017. This has been brewing for a long time, one could argue since the 90s, when political discourse and bipartisanship started degrading. Donald Trump was just the catalyst needed to accelerate the final collapse. And by collapse I mean "collapse". American democracy is not surviving the next 20 years.
As an aside, it it really strange to see people falling in front of Trump to protect him on HN, a place with seemingly smart people. A man with zero principles, no moral compass, and fewer redeeming qualities than Caligula.
And all of this in a thread that is wondering - why doesn't Donald Trump care about our rules?
Off to shout obscenities at a school board meeting, toodles!
As an aside, it it really strange to see people falling in front of Trump to protect him on HN, a place with seemingly smart people. A man with zero principles, no moral compass, and fewer redeeming qualities than Caligula.
And all of this in a thread that is wondering - why doesn't Donald Trump care about our rules?
Off to shout obscenities at a school board meeting, toodles!
Every generation thinks their problems are the worst. It’s just more of the same political fighting where one side demonizes the other to try to get people on their side. The world moves on until the next time they need to demonize someone and nothing of importance really happened. There is no collapse, just on to the next candidate.
The first time in American history there was no peaceful transfer of power, the loser claimed the election stolen, and refused to concede. So, no, it's not "just another candidate". This false both-side-ism is intellectually dishonest.
It’s not both side ism. They literally lied for years and spent millions of tax payer dollars trying to take out the president, and yet nothing more than words were said by the other side. Send pretty insignificant to me. If anything the opposite party you are claiming abused the legal system while the other simply expressed an opinion with no abuse of power whatsoever.
Everything stays the same until the moment that it doesn't.
In terms of "antithetical values", the machine learning project ml5js.org actually did something about this. They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons.
Reported violations of the Code of Conduct are sent to a Steering Committee, made up of members of the community, who determine if the reported project is in violation of the Code of Conduct. If so, the Committee takes steps to remedy the situation (e.g. realigning project with the Code of Conduct, or removing ml5.js from the project) — and if no resolution is found, the project falls out of compliance with the terms of the software license.
It's an interesting experiment.² Software is a tool to help us solve problems and reach desired outcomes. Licenses are also a tool to help us solve problems and reach desired outcomes. When desired outcomes exclude certain things (e.g. discrimination of marginalized communities, manipulation of public opinion, autonomous weapons, values antithetical to that of a community), it seems a Code of Conduct can also be a worthwhile tool to solve problems and support the outcomes that the community is working towards. (Of course, wisdom and governance are crucial and not to be taken for granted. Shout out DKP servers³ for showing some light there.)
¹ ml5.js Code of Conduct: https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/
² Analysis from KE Mitchell on ml5.js licensing: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/12/ml5js-Takes-a-Stan...
³ On Dragon Kill Points and governance systems in World of Warcraft: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958945
Reported violations of the Code of Conduct are sent to a Steering Committee, made up of members of the community, who determine if the reported project is in violation of the Code of Conduct. If so, the Committee takes steps to remedy the situation (e.g. realigning project with the Code of Conduct, or removing ml5.js from the project) — and if no resolution is found, the project falls out of compliance with the terms of the software license.
It's an interesting experiment.² Software is a tool to help us solve problems and reach desired outcomes. Licenses are also a tool to help us solve problems and reach desired outcomes. When desired outcomes exclude certain things (e.g. discrimination of marginalized communities, manipulation of public opinion, autonomous weapons, values antithetical to that of a community), it seems a Code of Conduct can also be a worthwhile tool to solve problems and support the outcomes that the community is working towards. (Of course, wisdom and governance are crucial and not to be taken for granted. Shout out DKP servers³ for showing some light there.)
¹ ml5.js Code of Conduct: https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/
² Analysis from KE Mitchell on ml5.js licensing: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/12/ml5js-Takes-a-Stan...
³ On Dragon Kill Points and governance systems in World of Warcraft: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958945
If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles.
Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potential to improve the world. Otherwise the situation will get worse.
Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potential to improve the world. Otherwise the situation will get worse.
Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.
Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society. Trying to carve out little patches for your type of people and excluding that scary, evil other does not work. We're at Enlightenment+200 years here. I suppose shouldn't have to try make a defence of tolerating different opinions. If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach. Freedom consistently outperforms all the ideas people swear are going to work better than freedom.
Marginalised communities are not protected by documents that claim to protect marginalised communities. Fat lot of good documents have ever done. What protects marginalised communities is actual tolerance of differing opinions, and actual freedom. Ditto what protects us from surveillance. Fat lot of good all the paper protections against surveillance have done. Look at what America has built! Let alone China. Once again, the problem is a knee-jerk overreaction and paranoia in the ruling class when the correct answer is tolerance. Ditto weapons. Did Afghanistan benefit from code of conducts? No, what it needed was a bulkwork of people who said "lets really stretch ourselves not to hurt people who dislike us" at a critical moment.
This license won't do what it claims. Best case, it is GPL+Fluff. Worst case, it becomes an exclusionary political tool. Ironically, it is likely that it will be wielded against marginalised communities.
Marginalised communities are not protected by documents that claim to protect marginalised communities. Fat lot of good documents have ever done. What protects marginalised communities is actual tolerance of differing opinions, and actual freedom. Ditto what protects us from surveillance. Fat lot of good all the paper protections against surveillance have done. Look at what America has built! Let alone China. Once again, the problem is a knee-jerk overreaction and paranoia in the ruling class when the correct answer is tolerance. Ditto weapons. Did Afghanistan benefit from code of conducts? No, what it needed was a bulkwork of people who said "lets really stretch ourselves not to hurt people who dislike us" at a critical moment.
This license won't do what it claims. Best case, it is GPL+Fluff. Worst case, it becomes an exclusionary political tool. Ironically, it is likely that it will be wielded against marginalised communities.
> illiberal political beliefs
What do you mean? Which definition of 'liberal' are you using?
That licence is one shard about opinion (debatable instancing of «marginalized») and fundamentally about use.
What do you mean? Which definition of 'liberal' are you using?
That licence is one shard about opinion (debatable instancing of «marginalized») and fundamentally about use.
> wikipedia
Funny you mention that page, because before posting the question «Which definition of 'liberal' are you using» I went to that very page to try to try and find an interpretation that fit the context. But nothing answered it clearly. So, that remains insufficient.
If the use of 'liberal' was meant to refer to the defence of freedom of speech, there exist a problem in the discrimination between "speech" as intended in the formula and «manipulat[ion]» as written in that licence. But was that the idea? We should not be here to guess.
Funny you mention that page, because before posting the question «Which definition of 'liberal' are you using» I went to that very page to try to try and find an interpretation that fit the context. But nothing answered it clearly. So, that remains insufficient.
If the use of 'liberal' was meant to refer to the defence of freedom of speech, there exist a problem in the discrimination between "speech" as intended in the formula and «manipulat[ion]» as written in that licence. But was that the idea? We should not be here to guess.
There wasn't a specific liberal principle I was thinking of. If you want more of an itemised list, I've gone through the "generally supported" list at the start of the wiki article and listed the basic issues I was inferring from s7r's original post were:
* Anti-democratic (in that they privilege the copyright holders political views)
* Anti-secular/anti-religious-freedom (in that they privilege the copyright holders values and would likely exclude people based on religious values in conflict with the CoC).
* Anti-free-speech (in that they would deny access to their work based on what people say).
* Anti-market economy (in that they aren't providing a tool/service to anyone equally based on a free market).
Which isn't to say they're bad people or anything, liberalism isn't the be-all and end-all. But the GPL is a neat embodiment of some very good ideas from the liberal tradition and this ml5js library license is much less liberal than the GPL. And also worse.
* Anti-democratic (in that they privilege the copyright holders political views)
* Anti-secular/anti-religious-freedom (in that they privilege the copyright holders values and would likely exclude people based on religious values in conflict with the CoC).
* Anti-free-speech (in that they would deny access to their work based on what people say).
* Anti-market economy (in that they aren't providing a tool/service to anyone equally based on a free market).
Which isn't to say they're bad people or anything, liberalism isn't the be-all and end-all. But the GPL is a neat embodiment of some very good ideas from the liberal tradition and this ml5js library license is much less liberal than the GPL. And also worse.
> Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society.
It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach.
You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.
Meanwhile, you're citing the GPL which is a highly political license.
It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach.
You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.
Meanwhile, you're citing the GPL which is a highly political license.
>> Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society.
> It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
This is a non sequitur. GP placed a bound on tolerance.
> You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.
GP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has asserted anything of the kind. In fact, I suspect he's somewhat opposed to the same, since he's opposed to "illiberal political beliefs" which are themselves quite aligned with "xenophobic political movements".
In any case, I think you've entirely missed the pragmatic points of the GP's post, which is that such illiberal policies are, throughout history, used against the marginalized peoples they are ostensibly intended to protect. Given your previous statement about unbounded tolerance, it feels like you should be in agreement with the GP on this point; unless you're saying we should just skip the tolerance and go straight to intolerance.
> It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
This is a non sequitur. GP placed a bound on tolerance.
> You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.
GP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has asserted anything of the kind. In fact, I suspect he's somewhat opposed to the same, since he's opposed to "illiberal political beliefs" which are themselves quite aligned with "xenophobic political movements".
In any case, I think you've entirely missed the pragmatic points of the GP's post, which is that such illiberal policies are, throughout history, used against the marginalized peoples they are ostensibly intended to protect. Given your previous statement about unbounded tolerance, it feels like you should be in agreement with the GP on this point; unless you're saying we should just skip the tolerance and go straight to intolerance.
> Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
And to allow discriminating against "wrong" opinions is how intolerance becomes the norm.
And to allow discriminating against "wrong" opinions is how intolerance becomes the norm.
> And to allow discriminating against "wrong" opinions is how intolerance becomes the norm.
Do you feel that plotting to overthrow a democracy to install a totalitarian despot while discussing political assassinations is a grey area that's up for debate whether it's "wrong" or indeed undoubtedly wrong?
I mean, considering how this very same political group killed police officers during their coup attempt, where do you personally draw the line on murder?
Do you feel that plotting to overthrow a democracy to install a totalitarian despot while discussing political assassinations is a grey area that's up for debate whether it's "wrong" or indeed undoubtedly wrong?
I mean, considering how this very same political group killed police officers during their coup attempt, where do you personally draw the line on murder?
Obviously that's a hard question with no perfect solution. That being said, I don't think _talking_ about something should be illegal. You and I talking about how to assassinate someone shouldn't be enough to put us away for years. Doing something or attempting to do something is where I draw the line.
Now, of course, I see the problem of letting people freely talk about killing people, overthrowing the government or running concentration camps. But forbidding this kind of speech is not going to prevent it if the pull is strong enough; even worse, it's going to strengthen their narrative about oppression. Instead, it should be possible to openly discuss why this is wrong. To understand why someone has an opinion and showing him why that trade-off is not worth it is far better than trying to forbid even thinking about it.
Now, I know that our action prevention might need some form of surveillance to prevent radical groups from taking actions and, at its worst, might fail to prevent some unnecessary violence. In my opinion, though, we can have much more freedom and maybe even prevent more people from radicalizing than by trying to censor wrong thoughts.
Now, of course, I see the problem of letting people freely talk about killing people, overthrowing the government or running concentration camps. But forbidding this kind of speech is not going to prevent it if the pull is strong enough; even worse, it's going to strengthen their narrative about oppression. Instead, it should be possible to openly discuss why this is wrong. To understand why someone has an opinion and showing him why that trade-off is not worth it is far better than trying to forbid even thinking about it.
Now, I know that our action prevention might need some form of surveillance to prevent radical groups from taking actions and, at its worst, might fail to prevent some unnecessary violence. In my opinion, though, we can have much more freedom and maybe even prevent more people from radicalizing than by trying to censor wrong thoughts.
> Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
Actually, I believe everything works out if everyone is intolerant of intolerance. That would include suicide bombers.
People need to stop imposing on others.
Actually, I believe everything works out if everyone is intolerant of intolerance. That would include suicide bombers.
People need to stop imposing on others.
The problem is that once you have that loophole in the ideals of free speech, people start calling everyone they disagree with "intolerant" in order to feel good about themselves while shutting down the speech of people who disagree with them.
> People need to stop imposing on others.
What would you think would work if an authoritarian political movement plagued with xenophobia wants to use your work as a key tool to start imposing on tolerant people?
What would you think would work if an authoritarian political movement plagued with xenophobia wants to use your work as a key tool to start imposing on tolerant people?
unanswered(1)
They can, which doesn't mean they should.
Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, etc?
I think 1 and 2 are more the issue, but possibly all of them. They are all loose definitions that mean different things to different people. I think it would limit serious uptake once a legal department gets a hold of it.
(1) discriminating against marginalized communities
What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people?
(2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion
Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well.
(3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people
Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China?
(4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons.
I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.
(1) discriminating against marginalized communities
What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people?
(2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion
Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well.
(3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people
Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China?
(4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons.
I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.
If you have a political position that all weapons are bad and all surveillance is bad then I think that is a deeply flawed viewpoint. What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance. Where those things go into the realm of abuse. Of course, "abuse" is a subjective word for these things too, but I think there's a general consensus that some things are bad.
> What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance
All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.
All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.
Do you think that having a camera in your backyard constitutes surveillance? Does a baby monitor constitute surveillance? Does a drone with a camera constitute surveillance? It can be used for this, after all.
No matter what you think, the authors might disagree, so you have no way of using the software in anything related to it. Worse yet, this can quickly change - the system you built that uses this software in the background might be totally fine to watch a womans shelter, but the license could be pulled any minute because the authors dislike that you also sold your product to a normal prison.
No matter what you think, the authors might disagree, so you have no way of using the software in anything related to it. Worse yet, this can quickly change - the system you built that uses this software in the background might be totally fine to watch a womans shelter, but the license could be pulled any minute because the authors dislike that you also sold your product to a normal prison.
All rules can be interpreted maliciously, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any.
The context of this thread is way way beyond "political position".
Believing in human rights is only political because certain normal human biological variations and geographic distributions have been politicized by people who want to use software to strengthen that politicization. Encoding reason regarding treatment of those variations and distributions in license agreements is a patch to address politicization.
Would you say that you should have to work with every potential client who ever approaches you, whether or not they intend to pay, and whether or not they set fire to your dog last fall?
> They can, which doesn't mean they should.
Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?
> Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in and can be outright hostile towards you and your loved ones.
Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?
> Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in and can be outright hostile towards you and your loved ones.
> Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?
If the author of some software has a general good-faith position that others should use their software, then the conditions they associate with that software fall on a continuum from "reasonable to "unreasonable".
The MIT license is at the reasonable end. Saying "give me ten million dollars for this ROT13 algorithm" is at the unreasonable end.
When the person you replied to said:
> They can, which doesn't mean they should.
I think they were saying they personally considered the terms of the license at the "unreasonable" end. I don't disagree- saying "you can use this for now, but have to stop immediately if I or anyone I might sell this to say so" seems at least borderline unreasonable.
It certainly isn't "free software", though being wrapped in what is otherwise the Blue Oak license they're kind of hiding their non-free-ness. I think this is where I mostly take issue- it feels like the project is attempting to portray itself as a free software project, when it is not.
If the author of some software has a general good-faith position that others should use their software, then the conditions they associate with that software fall on a continuum from "reasonable to "unreasonable".
The MIT license is at the reasonable end. Saying "give me ten million dollars for this ROT13 algorithm" is at the unreasonable end.
When the person you replied to said:
> They can, which doesn't mean they should.
I think they were saying they personally considered the terms of the license at the "unreasonable" end. I don't disagree- saying "you can use this for now, but have to stop immediately if I or anyone I might sell this to say so" seems at least borderline unreasonable.
It certainly isn't "free software", though being wrapped in what is otherwise the Blue Oak license they're kind of hiding their non-free-ness. I think this is where I mostly take issue- it feels like the project is attempting to portray itself as a free software project, when it is not.
> If the author of some software has a general good-faith position (...)
The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt on the morality of a decision on how your work can and should be used, and only because you find it inconvenient. For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith?
Meanwhile, I never saw anyone attack musicians based on "morality" for refusing to authorize the use of their work by specific politicians or specific election campaigns, even when authors only claim personal preferences or even prefering other candidates.
The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt on the morality of a decision on how your work can and should be used, and only because you find it inconvenient. For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith?
Meanwhile, I never saw anyone attack musicians based on "morality" for refusing to authorize the use of their work by specific politicians or specific election campaigns, even when authors only claim personal preferences or even prefering other candidates.
> For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith?
As someone reading through this: Yes. I find that argument both reasonable and fair.
The author is free to ask for compensation up front in exchange for the tool they've built. They can also just simply refuse to license it in the first place.
But a license that I can violate if the author simply changes their mind is quicksand: Nothing of value can be built on it, because it might sink at ANY POINT.
It's literally unusable as a tool.
As someone reading through this: Yes. I find that argument both reasonable and fair.
The author is free to ask for compensation up front in exchange for the tool they've built. They can also just simply refuse to license it in the first place.
But a license that I can violate if the author simply changes their mind is quicksand: Nothing of value can be built on it, because it might sink at ANY POINT.
It's literally unusable as a tool.
Musicians can say they would rather someone not use a song but they sold their rights a long time ago. Very few own those songs they wish others not to use.
The "good faith position" weasel words, along with the rest of my comment regarding the whole thing being a spectrum of subjective reasonableness, serve to make it clear that this is a highly subjective topic where you and I have different opinions.
Where I personally draw the line is something being presented as a "general purpose tool", versus as an exclusive work.
When Stuart Stemple created a pink pigment and granted license to use it to "everyone except Anish Kapoor", I thought it was a great artistic statement, but as a practical matter I think it's unreasonable.
It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. Saying "you can use this if you meet these criteria (e.g. having no criteria, having paid me money, etc)" is okay, but saying "everyone can use this EXCEPT if I decide I don't want you too" is not. In my opinion.
Where I personally draw the line is something being presented as a "general purpose tool", versus as an exclusive work.
When Stuart Stemple created a pink pigment and granted license to use it to "everyone except Anish Kapoor", I thought it was a great artistic statement, but as a practical matter I think it's unreasonable.
It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. Saying "you can use this if you meet these criteria (e.g. having no criteria, having paid me money, etc)" is okay, but saying "everyone can use this EXCEPT if I decide I don't want you too" is not. In my opinion.
> The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it.
Indeed so, they have that right.
I personally wouldn't consider using code licensed like this, because even if I 100% agreed with the CoC and Steering Committee, both might change over time (the CoC says "We expect the Code of Conduct to be a living document") and I have no idea who'll be on the Steering Committee in 5-10 years time, and whoever it is will be able to pull the rug from under my feet at a whim.
Indeed so, they have that right.
I personally wouldn't consider using code licensed like this, because even if I 100% agreed with the CoC and Steering Committee, both might change over time (the CoC says "We expect the Code of Conduct to be a living document") and I have no idea who'll be on the Steering Committee in 5-10 years time, and whoever it is will be able to pull the rug from under my feet at a whim.
Is ones liscence based on the values of when it is granted or reviewed every day?
A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000.
A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000.
> A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000.
Atlassian has a patent on that business process.
Atlassian has a patent on that business process.
> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it.
Yeah, and that's not called free software, Free Software is about empowering end users, not the creator.
Yeah, and that's not called free software, Free Software is about empowering end users, not the creator.
>They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.
Whether they're under a moral or legal obligation depends on the moral code (not the same across people in the same country, much less in different countries) and the legal code.
For example, if they had a condition that Women, Gays, Jews or Blacks should not use it? Can they "put any conditions they please" including the above? What would you say about this "morally"? I know what most would say: that they have a moral obligation to not put such a condition.
And it would not be legal either, in many jurisdictions at least.
Whether they're under a moral or legal obligation depends on the moral code (not the same across people in the same country, much less in different countries) and the legal code.
For example, if they had a condition that Women, Gays, Jews or Blacks should not use it? Can they "put any conditions they please" including the above? What would you say about this "morally"? I know what most would say: that they have a moral obligation to not put such a condition.
And it would not be legal either, in many jurisdictions at least.
The creators are themselves fruit of the society. It's short-sighted to grant them the privilege to withhold their fruit.
Really obscure: be more clear.
The creators are not simply the outcome of a populated space but of its navigation, through orientation, implying the sought, the accepted and the refused. Their «fruit» is produced accordingly - and not just "owing to society", but also "in spite of it" - and represents an intention, which is conditional to the product itself.
The creators are not simply the outcome of a populated space but of its navigation, through orientation, implying the sought, the accepted and the refused. Their «fruit» is produced accordingly - and not just "owing to society", but also "in spite of it" - and represents an intention, which is conditional to the product itself.
Intention, orientation and living "in spite" of society is part and parcel of the social individual. I'm not putting him down; I'm just deflating him. I'm not devaluing individualism either, it's a tool, but, to me, to say that an individual has autogenerated his achievements is like saying that a plant's flower does not come from the plant.
While I agree wholeheartedly, since the overly-clever invention of copyright that ship has kind of sailed. The vast majority of IP is owner controlled, because a few people hundreds of years ago thought it would be cheaper to just throw things into the court system, rather than deal with taxation, subsidies, and other regulation.
And way back then - when courts where a thing, but a broad tax base was not, and in any case society didn't have the kind of near-instant communication networks available now - that might even have made sense.
And way back then - when courts where a thing, but a broad tax base was not, and in any case society didn't have the kind of near-instant communication networks available now - that might even have made sense.
And yet society grants this privilege; rather pervasively in fact.
Sure, but we do that all the time don't we? It's called private property.
I agree with your intention, but there's a balance to be struck between individual contributions and those of wider society.
I agree with your intention, but there's a balance to be struck between individual contributions and those of wider society.
Indeed. I would like your life savings, please, as I too am part of society. Venmo or PayPal?
> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it
Isn't it "how they sell it" instead of "how they use it"?
Edit: Also, "how" doesn't necessarily mean "what for".
Isn't it "how they sell it" instead of "how they use it"?
Edit: Also, "how" doesn't necessarily mean "what for".
It is not. The license in questions says "if you use this software in a way we don't like, we can revoke your license". Nothing to do with selling it.
[deleted]
Ignoring the philosophical issues what about just the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to use software like that? Especially as the “terms of use” change, nobody would want to use any of this software in a critical system.
What about a bakery forbidding sale of cakes to people whose marriage violates their "code of conduct"?
Literally: a server should be free to decline services to specific clients - service is conditional. It should be easy for anyone in general to think of a list of clients one would not work for.
Contextually: the point is more like "we do not accept that these springs we build can be used in landmines". It ecompasses the literal point, yet it is different - at least, it refuses the purpose, not the person.
Contextually: the point is more like "we do not accept that these springs we build can be used in landmines". It ecompasses the literal point, yet it is different - at least, it refuses the purpose, not the person.
That's not quite the same thing. Can a server or some other service provider refuse for any reason they like? What about protected classes? Should there be a whitelist of "good reasons"?
Purpose and person are hard to separate too. Like if you will sell cakes to anyone, except that nobody will be given a cake if it's for a gay wedding.
Purpose and person are hard to separate too. Like if you will sell cakes to anyone, except that nobody will be given a cake if it's for a gay wedding.
Not just Stallman, it's incompatible with the OSI definition of open source.
Depends where you live. In Canada and a lot of other parts of the world intellectual property also has something called moral rights. What is being done here is well within the copyright holder's moral rights in many parts of the world. If your name is associated with a project you have the right to assert how your project is used because it could reflect on the copyright holder's name and reputation.
Like all things intellectual property rights, the copyright's moral rights would have to be determined by a court of law in the copyright holder's legal jurisdiction.
Like all things intellectual property rights, the copyright's moral rights would have to be determined by a court of law in the copyright holder's legal jurisdiction.
I think you replied to the wrong comment? This is about OSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative
> incompatible with the OSI definition of open source
So what? Why does it matter what they think?
So what? Why does it matter what they think?
Because they created the term itself. The term became popular because of the meaning they gave it.
It doesn't. The OSI is basically a fancy landing page that tricks people into thinking open source has a front man. Everything about the OSI comes from a pedestrian perspective. Really nothing more than an informative blog.
> Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea.
Everyone is free to use the software. If a project is found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct (e.g. discriminating against marginalized communities, manipulating public opinion, automating weapons) than the community developing the software takes steps to remedy the problem with the reported violator, or the project falls out of compliance with the license.
I agree with your hesitance and apprehension of how it could could go wrong. There is significant responsibility in interpretation and governance, presumably (though in some cases, it could be pretty clear — like with weapons.). And in cases with consequences related to violence and weapons and oppression, it also seems like a step in the right direction.
In the context of some software, this may not fit or be useful. In other libraries, it could also be incredibly important and impactful.
It also requires stepping out of our innocence. It requires accepting responsibility for interpretation, decision-making, and governance — and that sometimes, some of our decisions may not be right. Sometimes, we have to make decisions even when the answers aren't clear. This is part of our personal lives, being in families, being in communities, being in companies. It's just decision-making at the end of the day — call it what you want (e.g. governance, licensing, restricting). Why shouldn't that kind of decisionmaking and responsibility be part of software and the communities building software — especially given its growing impact on the world around us?
> Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with
This is well said. I would just note that ml5.js's approach leaves room for disagreement, and a pathway to hear and understand and reconcile disagreement, before any action is taken. The devil is in implementation — though it does seem wise, and the community has likely thought through and accounted for more of the problems than we have. They probably had discussions just like this, actually, with perspectives just like ours.
Everyone is free to use the software. If a project is found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct (e.g. discriminating against marginalized communities, manipulating public opinion, automating weapons) than the community developing the software takes steps to remedy the problem with the reported violator, or the project falls out of compliance with the license.
I agree with your hesitance and apprehension of how it could could go wrong. There is significant responsibility in interpretation and governance, presumably (though in some cases, it could be pretty clear — like with weapons.). And in cases with consequences related to violence and weapons and oppression, it also seems like a step in the right direction.
In the context of some software, this may not fit or be useful. In other libraries, it could also be incredibly important and impactful.
It also requires stepping out of our innocence. It requires accepting responsibility for interpretation, decision-making, and governance — and that sometimes, some of our decisions may not be right. Sometimes, we have to make decisions even when the answers aren't clear. This is part of our personal lives, being in families, being in communities, being in companies. It's just decision-making at the end of the day — call it what you want (e.g. governance, licensing, restricting). Why shouldn't that kind of decisionmaking and responsibility be part of software and the communities building software — especially given its growing impact on the world around us?
> Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with
This is well said. I would just note that ml5.js's approach leaves room for disagreement, and a pathway to hear and understand and reconcile disagreement, before any action is taken. The devil is in implementation — though it does seem wise, and the community has likely thought through and accounted for more of the problems than we have. They probably had discussions just like this, actually, with perspectives just like ours.
> Everyone is free to use the software. [...]
The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. There's no problem with that, but they should be clear about it. They should also state clearly that ml5.js is not free or open source software, as its license violates the first principle of Free Software:
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
And the similar principle in the OSI definition of Open Source
> No discrimination against fields of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. There's no problem with that, but they should be clear about it. They should also state clearly that ml5.js is not free or open source software, as its license violates the first principle of Free Software:
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
And the similar principle in the OSI definition of Open Source
> No discrimination against fields of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
> The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software.
Any can use the software only for purposes in line with ml5.js values.
So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose. It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar, they just have to abide by the rules, and if they chose not to, they can find another bar.
Any can use the software only for purposes in line with ml5.js values.
So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose. It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar, they just have to abide by the rules, and if they chose not to, they can find another bar.
> only for purposes in line with ml5.js values
There are 2 caveats to that:
1. they can change their values at any time
2. they can decide at their sole discretion that your use isn't in line with their values, and you have no recourse.
> It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar
The difference is that one wouldn't use the bar as a platform to build a business on, whereas one might build a business on software.
There are 2 caveats to that:
1. they can change their values at any time
2. they can decide at their sole discretion that your use isn't in line with their values, and you have no recourse.
> It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar
The difference is that one wouldn't use the bar as a platform to build a business on, whereas one might build a business on software.
The things that people can do inside a bar are sufficiently limited that they will not normally impinge on their beliefs, so a good comparison is hard. It would be something like "you are not permitted to use this bar for the purpose of buying a drink to relax after a hard day developing nuclear weapons." This would be a pretty terrible thing for a bar to do and I would easily condemn it, even though it is merely "the rules".
> So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose.
Can a weapon manufacturing company use ml5.js ?
Can a weapon manufacturing company use ml5.js ?
That's bullshit and you must know it. If, say, Donald Trump were to use the software to save puppies, the steering committee would find a reason that this is actually worse than Hitler.
Your comment makes no sense, and Donald wouldn't use anything to save puppies to begin with.
Why not?
Hitler literally saved puppies. He was a forerunner of animal rights. I don't know about the relationship between Trump and puppies but real people are more nuanced than a D&D alignment chart, and even despicable people can do good.
Hitler literally saved puppies. He was a forerunner of animal rights. I don't know about the relationship between Trump and puppies but real people are more nuanced than a D&D alignment chart, and even despicable people can do good.
If I interpret all this correctly. What if the project was bought out by the kind of people who run patent-troll companies? Suddenly your retroactive license that can at any point be invalid based on someone's opinion of wrong is a giant liability. I'd struggle to recommend such a risk.
Exactly.
> I agree with your hesitance and apprehension of how it could could go wrong.
There are 2 issues:
1. the CoC is a "living document" which is Silicon valley speak for "we're making it up as we go along" (see also HTML5). It can change at any time.
2. The membership of the Steering Committee can change over time (and they can also change the CoC). What if in 5-10 years time I have built a successful business on this software, and the SC is taken over by employees of a rival company that then denies me use of it. As far as I can tell, I am shafted with no recourse.
For this reason I would never use any software licensed like this to do anything serious, nor would I contribute to any software licensed like this.
There are 2 issues:
1. the CoC is a "living document" which is Silicon valley speak for "we're making it up as we go along" (see also HTML5). It can change at any time.
2. The membership of the Steering Committee can change over time (and they can also change the CoC). What if in 5-10 years time I have built a successful business on this software, and the SC is taken over by employees of a rival company that then denies me use of it. As far as I can tell, I am shafted with no recourse.
For this reason I would never use any software licensed like this to do anything serious, nor would I contribute to any software licensed like this.
> discriminating against marginalized communities
If mastodon had this in the code of conduct they’d not be able to use their own software haha. They banned Gab and arguably Trump has a marginalized base and as far as I’m aware never advocated for violence (if you believe the contrary, note that trump could have been arrested but hasn’t)
If mastodon had this in the code of conduct they’d not be able to use their own software haha. They banned Gab and arguably Trump has a marginalized base and as far as I’m aware never advocated for violence (if you believe the contrary, note that trump could have been arrested but hasn’t)
In that case, Mastodon would be deciding who counts as "marginalized", and I really doubt they would see it that way.
You don't even have to guess. The default terms and code of conduct reflect my understanding of the project's positions.
https://mastodon.social/about/more
Some of Trump's base is marginalized on one intersection or another, but they support ideologies and an ideologue that are not marginalized by any defensible definition.
https://mastodon.social/about/more
Some of Trump's base is marginalized on one intersection or another, but they support ideologies and an ideologue that are not marginalized by any defensible definition.
[deleted]
> If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles.
Why do you think that would be the case? If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. It's not up to the greater community to decide what the best license is for other peoples projects.
It sounds like you have your own idea of what will "improve the world" and want other people to license their work to match with it.
Why do you think that would be the case? If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. It's not up to the greater community to decide what the best license is for other peoples projects.
It sounds like you have your own idea of what will "improve the world" and want other people to license their work to match with it.
> If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it.
No, you can't "just change it" if you have external contributors and you allow them to keep ownership of their contributions (the default). Many people object to CLAs on philosophical reasons and will refuse to sign them.
Now your "just change it" is a 6-12 months effort trying to chase down every single contributor and nitpicking your license change until everyone is happy, or rewriting a bunch of code due to licensing issues.
No, you can't "just change it" if you have external contributors and you allow them to keep ownership of their contributions (the default). Many people object to CLAs on philosophical reasons and will refuse to sign them.
Now your "just change it" is a 6-12 months effort trying to chase down every single contributor and nitpicking your license change until everyone is happy, or rewriting a bunch of code due to licensing issues.
I don't think you can change the license in hindsight, though? At most you could change it for newer versions of your software?
Personally, I can’t abide my software being used to harm others. My definition of “harm” will certainly differ from that of others, but for important software, I’d be happy to append a “not for military use” clause to the OSS license, which would beat keeping the software closed source and entirely proprietary.
Is it really a terrible idea to restrict your software from being used to control weaponry? To spread lies about science, like climate change denial or vaccine lies? To host child pornography sharing?
These above scenarios amount to handing criminals and bad actors powerful technological tools which allow them to increase harms done to society. This is a software company's choice, there is no law that states a company must provide its software to whomever, even if they have evil intent.
These above scenarios amount to handing criminals and bad actors powerful technological tools which allow them to increase harms done to society. This is a software company's choice, there is no law that states a company must provide its software to whomever, even if they have evil intent.
Define: weaponry.
I imagine an autonomous sentry-turret (Half-Life, Portal, etc) comes to mind. Obviously that’s right-out.
But what about airsoft or paintball? Those are recreational activities, but in some jurisdictions their respective “guns” can be legally considered weapons because they can still do serious bodily harm - as well as intimidate.
———
Another example is “Windows for Warships”: you could build this software for that, no? So, is a warship a weapon? Naval frigate? Merchant marine vessel that carries small-arms for self-defense? At what point does arbitrary hardware attached to the computer running this software become a “weapon” or not?
I’m not a rights-absolutist - I just think when writing a license with restrictions that are going to be open to interpretation get a gosh-darned lawyer involved and be as specific as possible, and then some. You don’t want a project getting bogged-down by internet nerds complaining about stuff like this. Not least an army of trolls who will spam your inbox with hair-splitting questions about the classification of firearms technology to gleefully waste your time. (“it’s not an ‘assault rifle’, it’s a ‘scary looking semi-automatic AR-15’”, “bump-stocks aren’t automatics lololol”, etc)
I imagine an autonomous sentry-turret (Half-Life, Portal, etc) comes to mind. Obviously that’s right-out.
But what about airsoft or paintball? Those are recreational activities, but in some jurisdictions their respective “guns” can be legally considered weapons because they can still do serious bodily harm - as well as intimidate.
———
Another example is “Windows for Warships”: you could build this software for that, no? So, is a warship a weapon? Naval frigate? Merchant marine vessel that carries small-arms for self-defense? At what point does arbitrary hardware attached to the computer running this software become a “weapon” or not?
I’m not a rights-absolutist - I just think when writing a license with restrictions that are going to be open to interpretation get a gosh-darned lawyer involved and be as specific as possible, and then some. You don’t want a project getting bogged-down by internet nerds complaining about stuff like this. Not least an army of trolls who will spam your inbox with hair-splitting questions about the classification of firearms technology to gleefully waste your time. (“it’s not an ‘assault rifle’, it’s a ‘scary looking semi-automatic AR-15’”, “bump-stocks aren’t automatics lololol”, etc)
> Define: weaponry.
If activists can define "infrastructure" as social programs, they can define "weaponry" as end-to-end encryption, cryptocurrency, or just websites that express perspectives that they dislike. We all lose when people play language games like this.
If activists can define "infrastructure" as social programs, they can define "weaponry" as end-to-end encryption, cryptocurrency, or just websites that express perspectives that they dislike. We all lose when people play language games like this.
The issue with a "weird" license like this is that anyone other than individuals will be afraid to touch it. This includes corporations, universities and governments. Existing licenses like MIT or BSD are well-understood and don't need to go through legal. Strange clauses turn into lots of hours and lead time with legal making sure they won't be an issue.
>Is it really a terrible idea to restrict your software from being used to control weaponry?
Seems reasonable until you do something unrelated to offend the licensor and they decide to leverage a very loose definition of weaponry/munitions against you. For example, have a look at what is consider munitions for the purpose of export controls in the USA, and consider what additional items have been regulated as munitions in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
Seems reasonable until you do something unrelated to offend the licensor and they decide to leverage a very loose definition of weaponry/munitions against you. For example, have a look at what is consider munitions for the purpose of export controls in the USA, and consider what additional items have been regulated as munitions in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
> Is it really a terrible idea to restrict your software from being used to control weaponry? To spread lies about science, like climate change denial or vaccine lies?
No, but there's a terrible slippery slope to have the creator able to make value judgments about uses of the software after the software is adopted and exert power over the users this way.
> To host child pornography sharing?
I think it's a bit of hyperbole once we're extending this value judgment to conduct that is already otherwise illegal. Is someone breaking the law to host child pornography and facing criminal charges going to be deterred by the possibility of civil damages from license noncompliance?
No, but there's a terrible slippery slope to have the creator able to make value judgments about uses of the software after the software is adopted and exert power over the users this way.
> To host child pornography sharing?
I think it's a bit of hyperbole once we're extending this value judgment to conduct that is already otherwise illegal. Is someone breaking the law to host child pornography and facing criminal charges going to be deterred by the possibility of civil damages from license noncompliance?
> Is it really a terrible idea to restrict your software from being used [to do all sorts of things]
Possibly. If the list of restrictions is ill-defined and ever-changing then it opens up a can of worms, which in practise means no-one will use the software.
Possibly. If the list of restrictions is ill-defined and ever-changing then it opens up a can of worms, which in practise means no-one will use the software.
To spread lies about science, like climate change denial or vaccine lies?
Of course it’s only a lie when your in-group defines it as such.
I recall at the beginning of the pandemic the CDC and surgeon general saying “masks weren’t necessary” and that “the lab leak theory is a conspiracy”. Of course both proved to be Noble Lies put out by the institutions.
I know it’s comforting to think of the world in terms of good/evil and truth/lies, but unfortunately it’s a messy complicated world and things are not as clear cut as we’d like.
Of course it’s only a lie when your in-group defines it as such.
I recall at the beginning of the pandemic the CDC and surgeon general saying “masks weren’t necessary” and that “the lab leak theory is a conspiracy”. Of course both proved to be Noble Lies put out by the institutions.
I know it’s comforting to think of the world in terms of good/evil and truth/lies, but unfortunately it’s a messy complicated world and things are not as clear cut as we’d like.
> Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potential to improve the world.
This is emphatically wrong. For at least two to three generations society has operated with a large part of it understanding that another large part of it is unethical and wrong (i.e. conscientious objectors and folks that sympathise but cannot bring up the courage to do so). If being so understanding is what made the world better, then 1930 would truly have been a golden age.
This is emphatically wrong. For at least two to three generations society has operated with a large part of it understanding that another large part of it is unethical and wrong (i.e. conscientious objectors and folks that sympathise but cannot bring up the courage to do so). If being so understanding is what made the world better, then 1930 would truly have been a golden age.
Your point about the «terrible idea», including the statement «Otherwise the situation will get worse», requires more defence. There is an issue with undesirable use of technology, so many are fearing future regret (Alfred Nobel in front of the title 'Le marchand de la mort est mort') - this has to be assessed, and is not solved by an appeal to trust (which is exactly what is lacking). The fear is about the opposite to «improv[ing] the world».
Not really, it goes withing the framework of freedom to define what actions are to be allowed or not under certain licenses.
There is nothing wrong with making, let's say, a licence that prohibits the use of its adhered product for activities such as the development of nuclear weapons.
There is nothing wrong with making, let's say, a licence that prohibits the use of its adhered product for activities such as the development of nuclear weapons.
[deleted]
Stallman was always right
Why? In what world does using software to marginalize people or mislead the public create a better world?
>In what world does using software to marginalize people or mislead the public create a better world?
The road to hell ... something something ... good intentions.
Who defines what 'marginalization of people' means (a strange term if you really think about it), and why would you think they would get that definition right?
The road to hell ... something something ... good intentions.
Who defines what 'marginalization of people' means (a strange term if you really think about it), and why would you think they would get that definition right?
> Who defines what 'marginalization of people' means
The software creators, which seems very reasonable to me. This isn't some arbitrary judge deeming what is marginalizing or not. This is the creators of the software saying "We don't want to build something that complete dickweeds can use for evil."
Don't like their definition of "dickweeds" or "evil"? Fine, build your own shit then.
The software creators, which seems very reasonable to me. This isn't some arbitrary judge deeming what is marginalizing or not. This is the creators of the software saying "We don't want to build something that complete dickweeds can use for evil."
Don't like their definition of "dickweeds" or "evil"? Fine, build your own shit then.
That’s reasonable, but don’t call it open source, because it isn’t.
I mean, it's not the same thing as an entirely unrestricted license, but then again, neither are open source licenses entirely unrestricted.
I understand that people want to look at this like a kind of slippery slope (if you can define one kind of restriction, why not define another and another - until you have closed source software by any other name) - but just because arbitrary restrictions mean something isn't colloquially "open" doesn't mean that certain specific restrictions might not still reasonably be compatible with something described as "open".
Certainly we should not accept a formalized definition of any language term like this; i.e. just because an OSI or other group wishes to claim the definition of open source doesn't mean we all need to use that definition. Specifically, let's not accept https://opensource.org/docs/osd as a kind of gospel truth. It's a fine initiative, but not necessarily the only possible one.
I'm not convinced that allowing a few restrictions would be a great idea, but then again, I'm also sure it would be dramatically different from the status quo, nor that is makes sense to no longer call such software open source.
I understand that people want to look at this like a kind of slippery slope (if you can define one kind of restriction, why not define another and another - until you have closed source software by any other name) - but just because arbitrary restrictions mean something isn't colloquially "open" doesn't mean that certain specific restrictions might not still reasonably be compatible with something described as "open".
Certainly we should not accept a formalized definition of any language term like this; i.e. just because an OSI or other group wishes to claim the definition of open source doesn't mean we all need to use that definition. Specifically, let's not accept https://opensource.org/docs/osd as a kind of gospel truth. It's a fine initiative, but not necessarily the only possible one.
I'm not convinced that allowing a few restrictions would be a great idea, but then again, I'm also sure it would be dramatically different from the status quo, nor that is makes sense to no longer call such software open source.
This has nothing to do with open source. I think that is the issue.
Not everyone needs to agree with your "One True Scotsman" decree.
Correct. There’s no need to listen to me because we have the OSI definition, which is widely accepted already.
If you are writing a license, which is a legal document, then its meaning is determined not by you but by "some arbitrary judge", because you are not the only party bound by this license. If some other developer starts using your product based on the license that you published it under, then you don't have the right to change the license terms retroactively. Best you can do is change the license for the future releases.
For one piece of software, maybe. Now imagine what happens when a lot of open source software does the same thing. It would become impossible to use open source software of that kind because there is no way that you will be able to satisfy many different groups of people each with their own points of view on what is moral or not, at the same time.
On top of that, even if all the groups shared the same views you’d still need to suddenly spend a lot of time understanding each group before you used their software, and you’d need to continue to keep an eye on their views to ensure you are complying.
Thanks but I will stick to the plain old open source licenses like ISC, MIT, GPL, and Apache.
On top of that, even if all the groups shared the same views you’d still need to suddenly spend a lot of time understanding each group before you used their software, and you’d need to continue to keep an eye on their views to ensure you are complying.
Thanks but I will stick to the plain old open source licenses like ISC, MIT, GPL, and Apache.
>> Who defines what 'marginalization of people' means
> The software creators
I don't understand how that could work. Would "marginalizing people" have any concrete legal definition at all or would it literally be anything the creator decides now or in the future?
Software creator says I'm marginalizing people, I deny it and refuse to stop using their library. How would a court sort that out?
> The software creators
I don't understand how that could work. Would "marginalizing people" have any concrete legal definition at all or would it literally be anything the creator decides now or in the future?
Software creator says I'm marginalizing people, I deny it and refuse to stop using their library. How would a court sort that out?
>Fine, build your own shit then.
Sure. Do what you want but don't try to claim that this is a good license. It's the opposite of a good license. It's ambiguous, capricious, and arbitrary.
Sure. Do what you want but don't try to claim that this is a good license. It's the opposite of a good license. It's ambiguous, capricious, and arbitrary.
> The road to hell ... something something ... good intentions.
That could be applied to *anything*, it doesn't have any substance.
That could be applied to *anything*, it doesn't have any substance.
Who gets to decide what behavior is marginalizing? Despite what you think, that isn't universally agreed upon.
See, this is where the creators of the CoC made a mistake, either of malice or ignorance.
>(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools that discriminate against marginalized communities
That could be better put as
>(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools that discriminate
By adding in "marginalized communities", they are creating loopholes. Some discrimination is good, as long as it is to people we don't like. Is discrimination against Chinese allowed? In the big picture, Chinese are the majority of the world population.
>(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools that discriminate against marginalized communities
That could be better put as
>(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools that discriminate
By adding in "marginalized communities", they are creating loopholes. Some discrimination is good, as long as it is to people we don't like. Is discrimination against Chinese allowed? In the big picture, Chinese are the majority of the world population.
They don't mean the words literally. As you point out, there's no consistent and clear definition. What the ml5.js license actually means is that the creators will harass --- at first socially, then maybe legally --- members of their political outgroup who use their software. It's not conduct they're prohibiting, but aid and comfort to the enemy tribe.
That’s working as intended. They don’t want to prevent discrimination, they want to stop discrimination against groups they like.
[deleted]
It's such a silly Americanized view. With they would leave that crap out of everything they touch and just write software.
> Chinese are the majority of the world population.
No, they are roughly 1/5th of it.
No, they are roughly 1/5th of it.
True they are not majority by being over 1/2 population but they are majority in the sense of greater quantity or share.
Population by Country China 18.47% India 17.70% USA 4.25%
I could take your argument and use it to say that Christians are not the majority even though they are 31.11% if looking at the religious population size.
By mostly my point was to highlight that you can spin and manipulate the CoC however you want, thus leaving the CoC Steering Committee either over worked trying to enforce the CoC of using selective enforcement where they only go after "bad" people.
Also: >(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools to disingenuously manipulate public opinion
Would ingenuous manipulation be acceptable? https://www.wordnik.com/words/ingenuous adjective Of honorable extraction; freeborn; noble.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is fairness and justice I fear.
Population by Country China 18.47% India 17.70% USA 4.25%
I could take your argument and use it to say that Christians are not the majority even though they are 31.11% if looking at the religious population size.
By mostly my point was to highlight that you can spin and manipulate the CoC however you want, thus leaving the CoC Steering Committee either over worked trying to enforce the CoC of using selective enforcement where they only go after "bad" people.
Also: >(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools to disingenuously manipulate public opinion
Would ingenuous manipulation be acceptable? https://www.wordnik.com/words/ingenuous adjective Of honorable extraction; freeborn; noble.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is fairness and justice I fear.
The word you want is "plurality" not "majority"
[deleted]
roenxi wrote "Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea." which you apparently interpreted "people approved" as people who marginalize or mislead others. Which shows your bias and dramatically misses the point. You would allow the restriction of software based on subjective measures like "misleading the public" and "marginalize people". Would you ban the CDC and the WHO? They have mislead the public. Would you ban twitter, they have marginalized conservative opinions. The open expression of thought increases human knowledge and prevents groupthink. You don't have to agree with everything you hear or read. In fact you shouldn't, but you should be fore open expression and you should gain the skills to counter the speech you disagree with logically instead of simply attempting to silence others.
[deleted]
One perspective is that entities which want to do bad things with software will find a way, even if it means writing it themselves or buying it. Trying to build protections against that into the license will create a heavy enforcement burden and provide a point of compromise that could be used to target unpopular or inconvenient, but not "bad", users of the software. Making a free license deliberately allows the possibility that the software could be used for bad purposes.
[deleted]
because some people should be marginalized less than others.
> Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea.
Isn't that the whole point of author's rights/intellectual property in general and software licenses in particular?
Isn't that the whole point of author's rights/intellectual property in general and software licenses in particular?
No, the (original) point is a time-limited monopoly on the use of a creation in order to compensate for creativity (for copyright) or public disclosure (for patent rights; note the use of the word “patent”, originally used for certificates affirming government-enforced monopolies of other kinds as well, e.g. for the exploitation of a colony). Though the French droits d’auteur line of thought works differently, or so I’m told.
> No, the (original) point is a time-limited monopoly on the use of a creation in order to compensate (...)
No, not really. Author's rights and intellectual property are not a price tag on an open market. They establish that the author has exclusive rights over his own work, and thus anyone who is interested in accessing said work needs explicit authorization from the author and covering explicitly the intender use. You don't just press a button and get a license that the author did not specified.
No, not really. Author's rights and intellectual property are not a price tag on an open market. They establish that the author has exclusive rights over his own work, and thus anyone who is interested in accessing said work needs explicit authorization from the author and covering explicitly the intender use. You don't just press a button and get a license that the author did not specified.
> exclusive rights
... Generally called a monopoly, yes. (The original Copyright Act 1710 had a hard upper limit of 28 years on the duration, the modern near-eternal copyright is a recent thing; patents are around 20 years max even today, or using the LAME codec would still be illegal.)
While I don’t think I called it a price tag (if anything, it’s only the right to set one if desired), note that the practice of copyright assignment (required among others by most publishers, both of books and of periodicals) precisely amounts to selling this exclusivity at some sort of market-determined price. The Berne Convention’s inalienable “moral rights”, from what I understand, were intended exactly to limit the scope of this so that the author could at least receive acknowledgement even if they chose or were forced to give up any and all material benefits or other control over their creation.
... I’m not sure I entirely understand what you wanted to say, sorry, so this reply might be missing the point.
... Generally called a monopoly, yes. (The original Copyright Act 1710 had a hard upper limit of 28 years on the duration, the modern near-eternal copyright is a recent thing; patents are around 20 years max even today, or using the LAME codec would still be illegal.)
While I don’t think I called it a price tag (if anything, it’s only the right to set one if desired), note that the practice of copyright assignment (required among others by most publishers, both of books and of periodicals) precisely amounts to selling this exclusivity at some sort of market-determined price. The Berne Convention’s inalienable “moral rights”, from what I understand, were intended exactly to limit the scope of this so that the author could at least receive acknowledgement even if they chose or were forced to give up any and all material benefits or other control over their creation.
... I’m not sure I entirely understand what you wanted to say, sorry, so this reply might be missing the point.
> ... Generally called a monopoly, yes.
No, it really is not and this assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. Keep in mind that a monopoly refers to a single company or person selling something in a market being the only supplier of said thing. As it is easy to understand, monopolies have absolutely zero to do with this. This is a fundamental author's rights issue, where the author of any intellectual work has the right to decide who and how is allowed to use his own work, whether or not there is any sort of transaction or compensation.
No, it really is not and this assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. Keep in mind that a monopoly refers to a single company or person selling something in a market being the only supplier of said thing. As it is easy to understand, monopolies have absolutely zero to do with this. This is a fundamental author's rights issue, where the author of any intellectual work has the right to decide who and how is allowed to use his own work, whether or not there is any sort of transaction or compensation.
That's not correct. The other poster was talking about a monopoly in the more general sense: If someone has exclusive control of a thing, they have a monopoly. It's absolutely correct to say that US copyright law grants a limited-time monopoly to creators.
You're talking about an entity that has a monopoly (generally in a market). Perhaps confusingly, monopoly is also the word we use to describe such an entity.
You're talking about an entity that has a monopoly (generally in a market). Perhaps confusingly, monopoly is also the word we use to describe such an entity.
To be honest, deciding if you are not breaking ml5.js Code of Conduct feels like a material for full-time research on its own.
How to define who is marginalized by whom? And by what actor? Creators of the code, users, customers? What if both groups think they are marginalized by the opposing one? Who can use the code then?
Forbidding manipulation of public opinion is also too lax of a term to use that way. Look for example into such polarizing topics like pro-life/pro-choice debate worldwide. Each side can accuse the other of manipulating the public while still believing they are in the right.
Controlling weapons is probably the point that could be easily defended in terms of being rather concrete, but I think it could be placed as some kind of custom license (IANAL).
Putting things that should be confined to decisions made by some kind of regulatory body like a country’s judicial system in a text file is rather a pointless signaling in my opinion, although it can be easily understood why somebody would want to include something like that.
How to define who is marginalized by whom? And by what actor? Creators of the code, users, customers? What if both groups think they are marginalized by the opposing one? Who can use the code then?
Forbidding manipulation of public opinion is also too lax of a term to use that way. Look for example into such polarizing topics like pro-life/pro-choice debate worldwide. Each side can accuse the other of manipulating the public while still believing they are in the right.
Controlling weapons is probably the point that could be easily defended in terms of being rather concrete, but I think it could be placed as some kind of custom license (IANAL).
Putting things that should be confined to decisions made by some kind of regulatory body like a country’s judicial system in a text file is rather a pointless signaling in my opinion, although it can be easily understood why somebody would want to include something like that.
That's a surefire way to make sure proprietary software solutions win:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
>I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music.
>The result would be a system that you could not count on for any purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that task.
>How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti.
>It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for general software. If you make something that is generally useful, like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must not have the power to control people's activities through their pens. It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel.
>You do have an opportunity to determine what your software can be used for: when you decide what functionality to implement. You can write programs that lend themselves mainly to uses you think are positive, and you have no obligation to write any features that might lend themselves to activities you disapprove of.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
>I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music.
>The result would be a system that you could not count on for any purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that task.
>How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti.
>It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for general software. If you make something that is generally useful, like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must not have the power to control people's activities through their pens. It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel.
>You do have an opportunity to determine what your software can be used for: when you decide what functionality to implement. You can write programs that lend themselves mainly to uses you think are positive, and you have no obligation to write any features that might lend themselves to activities you disapprove of.
I don't think their choice of license had much to do with losing the battle with "proprietary software"...
> open-source license to a Code of Conduct
Just a minor note, a license that works this way can't be accurately described as Open Source. It's more accurate to say that ml5.js is an Ethical Source license. See https://ethicalsource.dev/ for more details.
I'm sure this is a name that will get debated as it becomes more common. But personally, speaking just as an outside observer I really like the name Ethical Source. I think it gets across what the movement's priorities are (open access with ethical restrictions). I think it gets across the movement's connections to the Open Source movement and its origins. But it does so in a way that doesn't promote confusion around the fact that the movement does have different philosophies and is a separate licensing scheme. It's a movement that sprung out of a specific objection to Open Source licensing philosophy (https://opensource.org/faq#evil) and makes a targeted pivot (Open->Ethical) to address the concerns it has.
Just a minor note, a license that works this way can't be accurately described as Open Source. It's more accurate to say that ml5.js is an Ethical Source license. See https://ethicalsource.dev/ for more details.
I'm sure this is a name that will get debated as it becomes more common. But personally, speaking just as an outside observer I really like the name Ethical Source. I think it gets across what the movement's priorities are (open access with ethical restrictions). I think it gets across the movement's connections to the Open Source movement and its origins. But it does so in a way that doesn't promote confusion around the fact that the movement does have different philosophies and is a separate licensing scheme. It's a movement that sprung out of a specific objection to Open Source licensing philosophy (https://opensource.org/faq#evil) and makes a targeted pivot (Open->Ethical) to address the concerns it has.
Well said, I didn't mean to misconstrue! Thanks for sharing this information and vocabulary. Indeed, Ethical Source does seem to be quite communicative. It also probably provides enough of a signal, when it comes to choosing licenses, if a decision-maker has some level of self-awareness. (e.g. If I feel my project doesn't have a problem meeting an "Ethical" standard, I'll feel comfortable choosing Ethical Source. Otherwise, I'll choose Open Source.)
It could also be a signal to end-users, community members, customers, and other stakeholders as well — who may prefer technologies built with Ethical Source, as compared to Open Source, which seems like it could be similar to patterns we see in the real world around "Fair Trade" and "Ethically Sourced" etc.
It could also be a signal to end-users, community members, customers, and other stakeholders as well — who may prefer technologies built with Ethical Source, as compared to Open Source, which seems like it could be similar to patterns we see in the real world around "Fair Trade" and "Ethically Sourced" etc.
I prefer the classic term, PROPRIETARY software. At least be honest about what this is.
Ethical Source licenses are proprietary, but just like in the case of Source Available licenses it can often be useful to create subcategories. No one gets up in arms when we in the Open Source movement distinguish between Copyleft and permissive licenses. I don't see why we should get up in arms when other people introduce the same kinds of granularity in their license terms.
There's a meaningful difference between an Ethical Source license and, say, an Adobe License. There's also a meaningful difference between an Ethical Source license and a traditional Source Available license like Mongo's. Yes, they all fall under the umbrella of proprietary licenses, but it's reasonable for communities to want more specific terms that accurately describe what their priorities/goals are.
I object pretty strongly to people trying to co-opt the Open Source movement for their own ends, particularly when I think they're trying to redefine/undermine terms like Open Source or deny the legitimacy of Open Source definitions purely for their own promotional purposes. This has been one of my chief criticisms of Source Available licenses and the debates around software like MongoDB. I think it would be hypocritical for me to turn around and try to dictate how other communities describe their licenses. And honestly, I think that Ethical v Open is a really descriptive way to describe the differences between the communities, and your comment demonstrates that.
Immediately you're pushing back that Ethical Source licenses aren't Open, they're proprietary. You're right, they're not Open. So the Ethical/Open substitution is in a lot of ways a perfect encapsulation of what's different here. Open Source licenses preserve Open access, Ethical Source licenses (at least attempt to) preserve social ethics.
I really don't get what the objection is. If I thought that Ethical Source as a term was trying to trick people into believing that it was Open Source or deny that the software was proprietary, I'd be angry about that. But at least from what I can see right now, I don't think that's the case. Far from being cagey or deceptive, the term Ethical Source actually draws attention to the fact that it's diverging from Open Source. I don't see why I should have a problem with that, I think it's a good term.
There's a meaningful difference between an Ethical Source license and, say, an Adobe License. There's also a meaningful difference between an Ethical Source license and a traditional Source Available license like Mongo's. Yes, they all fall under the umbrella of proprietary licenses, but it's reasonable for communities to want more specific terms that accurately describe what their priorities/goals are.
I object pretty strongly to people trying to co-opt the Open Source movement for their own ends, particularly when I think they're trying to redefine/undermine terms like Open Source or deny the legitimacy of Open Source definitions purely for their own promotional purposes. This has been one of my chief criticisms of Source Available licenses and the debates around software like MongoDB. I think it would be hypocritical for me to turn around and try to dictate how other communities describe their licenses. And honestly, I think that Ethical v Open is a really descriptive way to describe the differences between the communities, and your comment demonstrates that.
Immediately you're pushing back that Ethical Source licenses aren't Open, they're proprietary. You're right, they're not Open. So the Ethical/Open substitution is in a lot of ways a perfect encapsulation of what's different here. Open Source licenses preserve Open access, Ethical Source licenses (at least attempt to) preserve social ethics.
I really don't get what the objection is. If I thought that Ethical Source as a term was trying to trick people into believing that it was Open Source or deny that the software was proprietary, I'd be angry about that. But at least from what I can see right now, I don't think that's the case. Far from being cagey or deceptive, the term Ethical Source actually draws attention to the fact that it's diverging from Open Source. I don't see why I should have a problem with that, I think it's a good term.
I suppose my objection is that calling it "ethical source" implies that the practice is ethical, which I disagree with.
I've gotten into a lot of arguments with people about the word Open, from multiple perspectives. I've had people argue to me that Open is incorrect because Copyleft licenses restrict people's ability to restrict other people's freedom. I've had people argue to me that Open is incorrect because permissive licenses don't restrict people's ability to restrict other people's freedom. I've had the Source Available crowd argue to me (I would claim somewhat disingenuously) that the Open Source movement is committing some kind of bizarre "moral offense" by implying that Source Available software isn't open or libre by our definitions.
In general, I don't give those arguments a lot of weight. There is no completely global agreed-upon definition of what "open" means, but used in the context of Open Source and software licensing, it represents a community-decided, longstanding set of values that are reasonably understood by most people to be at least adjacent to open access and user freedom.
When I think about Ethical Source licenses -- I'm in the Open Source movement, I think there are downsides to trying to dictate how people use software and what they can do with it, even evil people. I'm also somewhat skeptical that allowing individual owners to dictate what they mean by "ethical" is sustainable long-term. Part of the reason Open Source is still around is that we don't allow people to dictate what they mean by Open, we have a set of standards, and if your license doesn't follow those standards, tough luck, you're out. We don't allow a lot of ambiguity. Even though Ethical Source does have community structures in place to work more democratically, I still worry when I look at the Ethical Source licenses whether this is a community that can survive future schisms over its values.
But, having said that, I'm still hard-pressed to think of another word I would prefer over Ethical. Regardless of any disagreements over whether their approach is feasible or practical, it's still an accurate summation of what they're trying to do. These are licenses that dictate access based on a kind of moral adherence. There is of course a little bit of marketing going on with the term Ethical (in the same way that there's a bit of marketing going on with Open), and of course there is no completely global agreed-upon definition of what "ethical" means (same as with open/libre). But the point of terminology like Open/Ethical is not to perfectly encapsulate everyone's philosophical views of what those words mean, they're to describe coordinated movements that try to align themselves with those words.
Whenever some Source Available grifter starts complaining to me that the OSI shouldn't get to define what Open means for everyone, I try not to take the bait, I try to remind them that Open Source is a community with community-defined definitions, and as long as those terms aren't wildly deceptive we're going to keep using them, thank you very much. So I kind of have the same response here: people can disagree with whether the Ethical Source licenses are actually ethical (the same as they can disagree with whether Copyleft licenses are open), but ultimately, it's a community that's defining its own terms, and I think if it's not being obviously deceptive it has some right to do that.
In general, I don't give those arguments a lot of weight. There is no completely global agreed-upon definition of what "open" means, but used in the context of Open Source and software licensing, it represents a community-decided, longstanding set of values that are reasonably understood by most people to be at least adjacent to open access and user freedom.
When I think about Ethical Source licenses -- I'm in the Open Source movement, I think there are downsides to trying to dictate how people use software and what they can do with it, even evil people. I'm also somewhat skeptical that allowing individual owners to dictate what they mean by "ethical" is sustainable long-term. Part of the reason Open Source is still around is that we don't allow people to dictate what they mean by Open, we have a set of standards, and if your license doesn't follow those standards, tough luck, you're out. We don't allow a lot of ambiguity. Even though Ethical Source does have community structures in place to work more democratically, I still worry when I look at the Ethical Source licenses whether this is a community that can survive future schisms over its values.
But, having said that, I'm still hard-pressed to think of another word I would prefer over Ethical. Regardless of any disagreements over whether their approach is feasible or practical, it's still an accurate summation of what they're trying to do. These are licenses that dictate access based on a kind of moral adherence. There is of course a little bit of marketing going on with the term Ethical (in the same way that there's a bit of marketing going on with Open), and of course there is no completely global agreed-upon definition of what "ethical" means (same as with open/libre). But the point of terminology like Open/Ethical is not to perfectly encapsulate everyone's philosophical views of what those words mean, they're to describe coordinated movements that try to align themselves with those words.
Whenever some Source Available grifter starts complaining to me that the OSI shouldn't get to define what Open means for everyone, I try not to take the bait, I try to remind them that Open Source is a community with community-defined definitions, and as long as those terms aren't wildly deceptive we're going to keep using them, thank you very much. So I kind of have the same response here: people can disagree with whether the Ethical Source licenses are actually ethical (the same as they can disagree with whether Copyleft licenses are open), but ultimately, it's a community that's defining its own terms, and I think if it's not being obviously deceptive it has some right to do that.
I wonder just how far people are willing to take their wokeism. So far neither the Pentagon nor CIA has had any problems recruiting scientists and software developers.
With idealism I've discovered that words are rarely followed by action.
With idealism I've discovered that words are rarely followed by action.
All the woke are doing are ensuring that all hell will break loose when the pendulum swings back.
[deleted]
Reminds me of the dispute between Douglas Crockford (the inventor of JSON and writer of JSON2 parser) and the open source movement…
The parser had a cheeky requirement that made it incompatible with various software licenses:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108
Also the same Douglas Crockford on refusing to change JSONLint 2’s strictness:
https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/43086204350119936?s=21
The parser had a cheeky requirement that made it incompatible with various software licenses:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108
Also the same Douglas Crockford on refusing to change JSONLint 2’s strictness:
https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/43086204350119936?s=21
Sure, interesting idea, but this is not open source as it is widely understood or as it is defined by OSI.
The ultimate irony is that this project is apparently sponsored by Google [1], a known peddler of mass surveillance to repress the rights of people.
[1] https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/issues/2
[1] https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/issues/2
> discriminating against marginalized communities
Only marginalised communities?
Only marginalised communities?
The way things are going, they’re probably defining discrimination as any negative outcome for a member of a marginalised community (where ‘marginalised’ is also defined on their terms.)
The licence surely implies any discrimination being forbidden.
Proof by contradiction: if someone uses this software to discriminate against an apparently non-marginalised community, then that community would be being marginalised in at least one way (by this usage), thus making that community a marginalised community, thus making that usage against the licence.
Proof by contradiction: if someone uses this software to discriminate against an apparently non-marginalised community, then that community would be being marginalised in at least one way (by this usage), thus making that community a marginalised community, thus making that usage against the licence.
Therefore no one is allowed to use it, ever. This thing runs in the web browser so it clearly marginalizes people who don't have internet access, as well as people who disable JS for security reasons, among others.
Wasn't Hacker News all up in arms over the SQLite "Code of Conduct" that borrowed too heavily from the Bible?
This is similar nonsense. You might as well have a "Don't Be Evil™" code of conduct that is as follows:
1. You may not use this software to do evil.
2. I decide what is evil.
This is similar nonsense. You might as well have a "Don't Be Evil™" code of conduct that is as follows:
1. You may not use this software to do evil.
2. I decide what is evil.
The usual meaning of "code-of-conduct" is a conduct guide for contributors to a project; In this case it appears to be for users of the software, and specific to project usage rather than user conduct (I think?).
Furthermore, if non-compliance with the CoC means: " the project falls out of compliance with the terms of the software license" then the terms of the CoC are the terms of the license.
Now, one solution would just to be to grant the steering committee the power to revoke the license, but this is not clearly the case:
> If anyone notifies you in writing that you have not complied with the Code of Conduct, you can keep your license by taking all practical steps to comply within 30 days after the notice. If you do not do so, and the ml5.js Code of Conduct Committee (or its equivalent or successor) agrees that you are in violation of the Code of Conduct, your license ends immediately.
So, what if someone (anyone?) notifies you that you are in violation, but you don't agree? I'd argue "all practical steps to comply" in the case that you are not violating the CoC is to do nothing. Even if the steering committee does agree you are in violation, this is not the only condition for ending the licence:
> If you do not [take all practical steps to comply with the CoC], and the [Committee] agrees that you are in violation..
These things are usually written in legalese for a reason; the "and" is ambiguous, but the usual interpretation is that both conditions need to be true, hence the committee decision is irrelevant if the first condition is not met, and who decides that?
Furthermore, if non-compliance with the CoC means: " the project falls out of compliance with the terms of the software license" then the terms of the CoC are the terms of the license.
Now, one solution would just to be to grant the steering committee the power to revoke the license, but this is not clearly the case:
> If anyone notifies you in writing that you have not complied with the Code of Conduct, you can keep your license by taking all practical steps to comply within 30 days after the notice. If you do not do so, and the ml5.js Code of Conduct Committee (or its equivalent or successor) agrees that you are in violation of the Code of Conduct, your license ends immediately.
So, what if someone (anyone?) notifies you that you are in violation, but you don't agree? I'd argue "all practical steps to comply" in the case that you are not violating the CoC is to do nothing. Even if the steering committee does agree you are in violation, this is not the only condition for ending the licence:
> If you do not [take all practical steps to comply with the CoC], and the [Committee] agrees that you are in violation..
These things are usually written in legalese for a reason; the "and" is ambiguous, but the usual interpretation is that both conditions need to be true, hence the committee decision is irrelevant if the first condition is not met, and who decides that?
> (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons.
Who decides whether the license was violated? That is, what counts as discrimination, what counts as "marginalized", do those differ by country, what counts as "disingenuously manipulating public opinion", what counts as "repressing rights", what counts as "tools that automate the deployment, operation and targeting of weapons".
For instance, can a nuts and bolts manufacturer whose nuts and bolts might be used to assemble pieces of a weapon use that ML project to do quality control of their products? Seems like an unsolvable quagmire.
Who decides whether the license was violated? That is, what counts as discrimination, what counts as "marginalized", do those differ by country, what counts as "disingenuously manipulating public opinion", what counts as "repressing rights", what counts as "tools that automate the deployment, operation and targeting of weapons".
For instance, can a nuts and bolts manufacturer whose nuts and bolts might be used to assemble pieces of a weapon use that ML project to do quality control of their products? Seems like an unsolvable quagmire.
> They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons.
That’s just not a free or open source license, period. Which is fine, as long as they don't pretend that it is either of those things, but it sounds like they do.
That’s just not a free or open source license, period. Which is fine, as long as they don't pretend that it is either of those things, but it sounds like they do.
> They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct
This isn't open source software, because the Steering Committee can arbitrarily take away anyone's right to use the software any time they like.
This isn't open source software, because the Steering Committee can arbitrarily take away anyone's right to use the software any time they like.
Isn't that software closed in all but name. I mean since they determine themselves whether anything violates the code of conduct they can basically ban usage of the software retroactively. If I use it to make a gazillion dollars through selling stuffed animals they would claim it violates code of conduct and I could get back into compliance by paying the committee the gazillion dollars and I'd have no recourse even though to an outside observer selling stuffed animals doesn't do any of the things banned by the code of conduct.
You will have to demonstrate how a social media platform that hasn't even launched yet has "discriminated againt marginalized communities". They haven't.
That sounds like a bunch of very wishy-washy vague terms that open source licenses shouldn't implement.
You're going to get a lot of companies that don't want to deal with the legal hassle of these special terms not contributing to open source software.
Whether the developers want that or not, I guess that's their choice.
You're going to get a lot of companies that don't want to deal with the legal hassle of these special terms not contributing to open source software.
Whether the developers want that or not, I guess that's their choice.
This is such an enlightened approach. Why stop at software. Shoe makers should absolutely start licensing their foot ware so that permission to wear their product can be revoked for violations of their Code of Conduct.
Just imagine has much better the world would be!
Just imagine has much better the world would be!
[deleted]
So who decides what is "disingeniously manipulating public opinion"?
I think for many people that statement is too vague and hence the risk of using that software is too high.
I think for many people that statement is too vague and hence the risk of using that software is too high.
> disingeniously manipulating public opinion
This is code for promoting viewpoints that the creators dislike.
This is code for promoting viewpoints that the creators dislike.
I think so, too. Or what if you just publish a web site that also displays ads?
This (possible but technically not yet a) license violation has gotten more press for OSS licenses and enforcement than anything before, I think.
Certainly more press than the Vizio thing, which will actually impact a lot more people if anything comes of it.
Certainly more press than the Vizio thing, which will actually impact a lot more people if anything comes of it.
Amazon violating open source agreements to host their own version of the product and squeeze the life out of the original company? Not a peep.
People whose political opinions differ from my own use the software? This must be stopped at once.
People whose political opinions differ from my own use the software? This must be stopped at once.
> Amazon violating open source agreements to host their own version of the product and squeeze the life out of the original company? Not a peep.
Many of us are pointing out Amazon's malpractices and ethical failures and there have been tons of articles from mainstream media talking about those as well.
Prominent example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065782
Many of us are pointing out Amazon's malpractices and ethical failures and there have been tons of articles from mainstream media talking about those as well.
Prominent example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065782
The reaction of people towards political campaigns using facebook data to campaign for US president in 2012 vs 2016 is similarly amusing and migraine inducing.
False equivalencies give me migraines too!!
Early days yet, but that Amazon thing got FAR more coverage on this site than the Trump thing has so far.
Now in mainstream press you’re probably correct; this is an uncomplicated story involving an actor who everyone knows doing a fairly simple, obvious bad thing to a non-profit. Obviously that is a much better story than AWS (laypeople do not really know what this is) doing something potentially bad but rather more complex and murky to another for-profit company.
Now in mainstream press you’re probably correct; this is an uncomplicated story involving an actor who everyone knows doing a fairly simple, obvious bad thing to a non-profit. Obviously that is a much better story than AWS (laypeople do not really know what this is) doing something potentially bad but rather more complex and murky to another for-profit company.
Which open source agreements has Amazon violated?
I think calling open fascism something as simple as a "differing political opinion" a bit reductive.
Additionally, a former president (and future presidential hopeful) taking advantage of someone in this manor is more newsworthy than a multinational corporation.
Though, I agree with what I assume is also your opinion that that Amazon situation matters more.
Additionally, a former president (and future presidential hopeful) taking advantage of someone in this manor is more newsworthy than a multinational corporation.
Though, I agree with what I assume is also your opinion that that Amazon situation matters more.
Could you list some of the things that make the right fascist? Its a pretty blanket statement to call everyone that has a different political opinion of you fascist. Here is the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Last administration had several people of color in it. It also had an openly gay member. I did not see them banning anyone off social media or suppressing the opposition. They removed far more regulations than they created which reduced their administrations power. As far as I know they never ignored a supreme court ruling.
Sure the last administration had major problems, but to try and compare say it is fascism is absurd imo. The fact the we have a new administration is all the proof you really need.
Fascist actions to me are things like admitting the government regularly bans people they don't like from social media. Ignoring supreme court rulings. Trying to shutdown opposition news organizations. Spying on opposition news organizations. Spying on political opponents. Demanding access to see every citizens bank transactions. Demanding the federal government have full control of all elections. All these actions lead towards a one party system in which the federal government has completely control over every aspect of its citizens life and forcefully suppresses the opposition.
Last administration had several people of color in it. It also had an openly gay member. I did not see them banning anyone off social media or suppressing the opposition. They removed far more regulations than they created which reduced their administrations power. As far as I know they never ignored a supreme court ruling.
Sure the last administration had major problems, but to try and compare say it is fascism is absurd imo. The fact the we have a new administration is all the proof you really need.
Fascist actions to me are things like admitting the government regularly bans people they don't like from social media. Ignoring supreme court rulings. Trying to shutdown opposition news organizations. Spying on opposition news organizations. Spying on political opponents. Demanding access to see every citizens bank transactions. Demanding the federal government have full control of all elections. All these actions lead towards a one party system in which the federal government has completely control over every aspect of its citizens life and forcefully suppresses the opposition.
> Fascist actions to me are things like admitting the government regularly bans people they don't like from social media.
Didn't really have a way to effectively do that, but tried to get laws changed so social media platforms that people had to opportunity to speak out against him on were shut down. That was a pretty common theme during his term.
> Ignoring supreme court rulings.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891563635/trump-administratio...
> Demanding the federal government have full control of all elections.
Not federal, but: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffens...
> Trying to shutdown opposition news organizations. Spying on opposition news organizations.
He actively went after every news org except for Fox and orgs further to the right of Fox. And nearing the end of his term, he started going after Fox as well.
There was the whole "throw protestors (and people near protests) in cars and drive them to undisclosed locations" thing that happened in Portland. There was the whole "can we invoke the Insurrection Act" stuff too.
You also miss the race stuff that definition of Fascism you linked to mentions. Stephan Miller's general existence should be enough to convince anyone of that.
Other characteristics of Fascism: punishing political opponents. Remember "Lock Her Up"? What about Democrats stealing the election and how they should be punished? One party system, right?
Then there was that tiny infiltration of the capital that he may or may not have had a large hand in.
He was very good at pushing as far as he thought he could, but no further. I admit, he didn't open fun down people in the streets. You're right, not a fascist.
Didn't really have a way to effectively do that, but tried to get laws changed so social media platforms that people had to opportunity to speak out against him on were shut down. That was a pretty common theme during his term.
> Ignoring supreme court rulings.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891563635/trump-administratio...
> Demanding the federal government have full control of all elections.
Not federal, but: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffens...
> Trying to shutdown opposition news organizations. Spying on opposition news organizations.
He actively went after every news org except for Fox and orgs further to the right of Fox. And nearing the end of his term, he started going after Fox as well.
There was the whole "throw protestors (and people near protests) in cars and drive them to undisclosed locations" thing that happened in Portland. There was the whole "can we invoke the Insurrection Act" stuff too.
You also miss the race stuff that definition of Fascism you linked to mentions. Stephan Miller's general existence should be enough to convince anyone of that.
Other characteristics of Fascism: punishing political opponents. Remember "Lock Her Up"? What about Democrats stealing the election and how they should be punished? One party system, right?
Then there was that tiny infiltration of the capital that he may or may not have had a large hand in.
He was very good at pushing as far as he thought he could, but no further. I admit, he didn't open fun down people in the streets. You're right, not a fascist.
Is it possible I live in an insulated worldview largely detached from the political, economical, and societal issues faced by non-urban dwelling, non-millennials?
No, definitely not. They’re just actual fascists.
No, definitely not. They’re just actual fascists.
Seeing as I don't live in an urban area and am in the most "red" state in the nation, I doubt I'm that removed from what you think I'm removed from.
That reads a lot like "I'm surrounded by people who think there's no (non-Democratic) fascism and that's proof I'm correct when I tell you it's okay." Frog-boiling is a serious problem in US politics these days.
TiVo
Linksys
Most of Oracle's business model.
Linksys
Most of Oracle's business model.
Vizio?
TV maker Vizio sued for GPL infringement https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/20/vizio_gpl_lawsuit/
Ohhh, I was thinking Visio, the drawing thing. Duh, thanks.
> As far as personal feelings are concerned, of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour
And sensible people would prefer that license violations would be published and pursued fairly, and personal feelings kept personal, rather than creating a soft list of people and perspectives whose online/computing freedom is less important than others.
And sensible people would prefer that license violations would be published and pursued fairly, and personal feelings kept personal, rather than creating a soft list of people and perspectives whose online/computing freedom is less important than others.
Would you care to finish reading the sentence you're quoting the first part of?
> As far as personal feelings are concerned, of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour, *but the reality of working on free software is that you give up the possibility of choosing who can and cannot use it from the get-go*, so in a practical sense *the only issue we can take with something like Truth Social is if they don’t even comply with the free software license* we release our work under.
> As far as personal feelings are concerned, of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour, *but the reality of working on free software is that you give up the possibility of choosing who can and cannot use it from the get-go*, so in a practical sense *the only issue we can take with something like Truth Social is if they don’t even comply with the free software license* we release our work under.
But isn't it exactly what they say? Like "hey, I wish they didn't use Mastodon, but there's a license and they can use our software if they want to and they comply with the license"? Or did I misunderstand this?
Their only issue in the article is that they don't comply with the license. I believe the "personal feelings" paragraph was added so that they explain to some people that they don't want to/cannot prevent them from using Mastodon. I'm sure they had received emails like "how can you allow Trump to use your open source software", "stop him, he is evil, and if you allow him to use Mastodon, you are evil too".
Their only issue in the article is that they don't comply with the license. I believe the "personal feelings" paragraph was added so that they explain to some people that they don't want to/cannot prevent them from using Mastodon. I'm sure they had received emails like "how can you allow Trump to use your open source software", "stop him, he is evil, and if you allow him to use Mastodon, you are evil too".
I could understand that interpretation. I just don't believe it's true. I think the best thing to say, if anything was necessary to say, would have been "This action is meant to defend the license, and does not constitute a judgment of the user that is violating the license."
OK but why not give them the benefit of the doubt? You've given no reason why you don't believe them, you just say you don't. OK, so what?
I understand why someone would interpret Mastodon's statement that way, but I believe it is a misinterpretation and not what Mastodon meant. I don't have a doubt about Mastodon's meaning.
As one more data point, I completely disagree with your interpretation, and don’t really have any doubts that serial_dev’s interpretation is correct
porbelm(2)
That sounds like a personal feeling.
It's a personal feeling about the purpose of the license, not about the people who are using the license.
I read it as being personal at first but on second read interpreted the “antithetical” comment to reference the issue that they were breaking the license and limiting the users freedom.
I meant that my comment was a personal feeling about the license, and not about any particular users or violators of the license.
The post says "we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour", and that is clearly not a criticism of just the nature of the license violation, but the people who are violating it.
The post says "we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour", and that is clearly not a criticism of just the nature of the license violation, but the people who are violating it.
Can’t a generous person who chooses to give away something (on the condition that anyone who chooses to accept this gift does the same) criticise the character of those who take advantage of this kindness for their own personal financial gain?
And? It's their website, they can criticise whoever they like on it.
I think this is a tu quoque fallacy.
In my view, it is OK to invoke personal feelings about whether personal feelings should be invoked in relation to the enforcement of a software license.
In my view, it is OK to invoke personal feelings about whether personal feelings should be invoked in relation to the enforcement of a software license.
This isn’t a fallacy because I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal.
For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat.
For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat.
>I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal.
You're going further than that, though, aren't you? You're impliedly suggesting they're a hypocrite. You're doing that to cast doubt on whether it's correct to invoke personal feelings when enforcing software licences by saying they are invoking personal feelings themselves when discussing that issue.
I suggest to you that this is an argument, and a blatant fallacy.
>For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat
In your example, if you used the fact that someone who said red meat was bad ate red meat in support of the proposition that it is not bad to eat red meat, that would be a perfect example of the fallacy.
You're going further than that, though, aren't you? You're impliedly suggesting they're a hypocrite. You're doing that to cast doubt on whether it's correct to invoke personal feelings when enforcing software licences by saying they are invoking personal feelings themselves when discussing that issue.
I suggest to you that this is an argument, and a blatant fallacy.
>For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat
In your example, if you used the fact that someone who said red meat was bad ate red meat in support of the proposition that it is not bad to eat red meat, that would be a perfect example of the fallacy.
> I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal.
Why would you suggest that, rp1? This is a place to discuss things. Our beliefs about appropriate ways to publicize license disputes are part of that.
Why would you suggest that, rp1? This is a place to discuss things. Our beliefs about appropriate ways to publicize license disputes are part of that.
I’m suggesting it because you said that personal beliefs should be kept personal. Similar to how if someone eating steak told me steak was unhealthy, I would advise them to stop eating steak. I read what you originally wrote, assumed it was true, and pointed out a logical inconsistency.
[deleted]
Then the mastodon devs shouldn't have picked the AGPL.
> if people so antithetical to our values
Values such as forking a public project, removing the logo, then claiming that the new project is proprietary private work that they did themselves.
People with values like that can fuck right off, but if they comply with the licence, they can use it.
Values such as forking a public project, removing the logo, then claiming that the new project is proprietary private work that they did themselves.
People with values like that can fuck right off, but if they comply with the licence, they can use it.
Just as Truth Social can use Mastodon's source code to spread lies and hate as long as they comply with the license, so can Mastodon use their own blog to disprove of Truth Social... as long as they enforce the license.
Their statement does not detract from their action.
Their statement does not detract from their action.
I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it, as well as add an unwritten "these kinds of people are are not allowed to use our software" clause to their license.
A sensible person might wonder what justification you have for that belief. Looking at the respective histories of both groups, I think you'll find that the violators are the sort of people to engage in uneven enforcement.
Moreover, is there another Mastodon license violator who's getting away with it because of their ostensibly favourable politics? What does it mean for your supposition if there's only the one violator?
Moreover, is there another Mastodon license violator who's getting away with it because of their ostensibly favourable politics? What does it mean for your supposition if there's only the one violator?
If that happens you would have a point, until then you are preemptively playing victim.
I'm no victim, play or otherwise; I didn't violate the license under which Mastodon is provided and never will.
> I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it
Maybe they will. As copyright holders, they are allowed to do that (though I don't think they have copyright assignation, so there would also be lots of _other_ copyright holders who could attempt different enforcement, presumably).
Maybe they will. As copyright holders, they are allowed to do that (though I don't think they have copyright assignation, so there would also be lots of _other_ copyright holders who could attempt different enforcement, presumably).
Right, the copyright holder could grant an alternative license with any terms they like to any specific recipients they'd like to.
[deleted]
Is there an example of a software with a license with more overt political views being directly stated in the agreement ? I'm NOT saying that it's wrong to have personal views, or to make a statement about what Mastodon feels about Trump's Truth Social, but I am curious if there is software in wide-use with something like "No anti-vaxxers". So far the most ideology-enforcing licenses I know are mainly about the battle for Free Software or code availability. Just imagine if there was a license demanding a certain way to feel politically (other than open-source political views).
IIRC, there were a lot of those licenses in the 1990s and early 2000s. They were mostly all weeded out in the license flame wars, largely initiated by system integrators and re-distributors who wanted to have a standardized set of licenses and not have to deal with any cute extra restrictions. Nowadays, software should use a license approved by OSI or FSF, or the software will find itself not being worth consideration.
> Nowadays, software should use a license approved by OSI or FSF, or the software will find itself not being worth consideration.
I wonder if Mongo DB and Elasticsearch are currently learning this lesson.
I wonder if Mongo DB and Elasticsearch are currently learning this lesson.
Somebody should break this bad news to Snowflake, SalesForce, Airtable, AWS, Azure, Google, Firestore etc. etc.
Back in 2004 Fyodor, creator of nmap, terminated SCO's rights to use it based on their suit against IBM and general attacks on the Linux community. A very specific example, but one that immediately came to mind when reading your comment.
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/fyodor-terminates-sco-righ...
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/fyodor-terminates-sco-righ...
There are also a few that disallow the software to be used in nuclear facilities[0]
I think there is a fairly long tail of variations and similar [1]. As others have mentioned I think the additional restrictions aren't particularly popular.
[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License-20...
[1] https://blueoakcouncil.org/list
I think there is a fairly long tail of variations and similar [1]. As others have mentioned I think the additional restrictions aren't particularly popular.
[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License-20...
[1] https://blueoakcouncil.org/list
Notoriously, JSLint, which can only be used for evil if you happen to be IBM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
GlovePIE's license forbids militaries from using it.
Well, there is the BipCot NoGov license, made by libertarians, that bans use by the government. Being committed libertarians, they don't enforce it with copyright law. I think it's mostly for humor.
https://bipcot.org/
https://bipcot.org/
Well, in the licence, Apple wouldn't let me use iTunes to build nukes, so that was rude.
There's the json "don't use this for evil" license.
Wow! I had no idea. That is actually hilarious and many parties have even used that to reject it's inclusion as Free Software https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
I was hoping for something more enforceable than that, but still interesting enough. Looks like half of all companies using JSON are in trouble (obviously it's subjective, don't think that needs to be said).
I was hoping for something more enforceable than that, but still interesting enough. Looks like half of all companies using JSON are in trouble (obviously it's subjective, don't think that needs to be said).
It's not the JSON format, but rather certain libraries which process JSON (I should have been more precise). Many companies avoid using those libraries for that very reason.
Are the quoted terms actually incorrect or in violation of the license?
>all source code ... are owned or controlled by us or licensed to us, and are protected by copyright and trademark laws
That's correct isn't it? The mastodon code would be licensed to them under the AGPL. So I am not sure this should be a source of "worry" in and of itself.
The potential issue appears to be that they have modified the mastodon code without publishing their modifications, which I believe might be a violation of the licensing terms (although I am certainly not an expert).
>all source code ... are owned or controlled by us or licensed to us, and are protected by copyright and trademark laws
That's correct isn't it? The mastodon code would be licensed to them under the AGPL. So I am not sure this should be a source of "worry" in and of itself.
The potential issue appears to be that they have modified the mastodon code without publishing their modifications, which I believe might be a violation of the licensing terms (although I am certainly not an expert).
I'm not sure it's correct, since they're reusing mastodon they should be clearly indicating that parts or all of the work is licensed under AGPLv3. And the claims you quote seem at best weasely if the entire thing is derivative of mastodon (and thus not in any way owned by truth social).
Per my reading of the AGPLv3 (though IANAL), section 5 seems to be rather thoroughly violated:
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to "keep intact all notices".
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
Truth seems to violate:
- 5 (a) by not having prominent notices that it's a Mastodon fork (assuming there's actual divergences from mastodon aside from the —— illegal —— white-labeling modifications)
- 5 (b) by not indicating that parts of it (and which) are under AGPLv3
- 5 (c) by not providing licensing terms for the mastodon derivation it must license out
- 5 (d) by having actually removed existing legal notice entirely
Per my reading of the AGPLv3 (though IANAL), section 5 seems to be rather thoroughly violated:
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to "keep intact all notices".
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
Truth seems to violate:
- 5 (a) by not having prominent notices that it's a Mastodon fork (assuming there's actual divergences from mastodon aside from the —— illegal —— white-labeling modifications)
- 5 (b) by not indicating that parts of it (and which) are under AGPLv3
- 5 (c) by not providing licensing terms for the mastodon derivation it must license out
- 5 (d) by having actually removed existing legal notice entirely
I agree that - on its face at least - the platform is probably in violation.
My point was just that I don't think the TS terms that Mastodon quotes in its blog post are incorrect.
My point was just that I don't think the TS terms that Mastodon quotes in its blog post are incorrect.
> On Oct 26, we sent a formal letter to Truth Social’s chief legal officer, requesting the source code to be made publicly available in compliance with the license. According to AGPLv3, after being notified by the copyright holder, Truth Social has 30 days to comply or the license may be permanently revoked.
IANAL, but this reads to me as if they don't comply in time[1], they might lose the license, rendering the statement incorrect.
[1] I don't know if they have to comply in 30 days, if the service is currently offline. Maybe they have 30 days after release?
IANAL, but this reads to me as if they don't comply in time[1], they might lose the license, rendering the statement incorrect.
[1] I don't know if they have to comply in 30 days, if the service is currently offline. Maybe they have 30 days after release?
Agreed that the statement would become incorrect if this outcome happens. Nevertheless, at the moment I believe the statement to be accurate.
Even if you don't modify the sources you have to provide them to anyone who uses the service.
There is no service.
People were able to access the service and create accounts. Those people are entitled to the sources.
This would immediately go away if they just posted a tarball of the almost certainly unmodified sources. I guess nobody running this understands what's going on?
This would immediately go away if they just posted a tarball of the almost certainly unmodified sources. I guess nobody running this understands what's going on?
If you have no right to a computer service, you have no right to the AGPL code it runs. For example, a company is allowed to make internal GPL-based tools and not have to release their code. If I hack into their service and download the binary, I’m not entitled to the source code.
If the closed beta was meant for a select few, but was found by someone else, that someone else doesn’t have a right to the code just because they managed to get access. Only the select few would be allowed.
The fact that it’s a public web server (with no access controls) does throw a wrench into things, but it’s not as simple as many here make it seem.
If the closed beta was meant for a select few, but was found by someone else, that someone else doesn’t have a right to the code just because they managed to get access. Only the select few would be allowed.
The fact that it’s a public web server (with no access controls) does throw a wrench into things, but it’s not as simple as many here make it seem.
> If the closed beta was meant for a select few, but was found by someone else
The license makes no such distinction. The website had no warning that it was a private test, was hosted on the presumed official domain and looked like it went live.
I never received an explicit authorisation by YC to use Hacker News and here I am. I wouldn’t call my access unauthorised even though it was never authorised.
The license makes no such distinction. The website had no warning that it was a private test, was hosted on the presumed official domain and looked like it went live.
I never received an explicit authorisation by YC to use Hacker News and here I am. I wouldn’t call my access unauthorised even though it was never authorised.
> The license makes no such distinction. The website had no warning that it was a private test, was hosted on the presumed official domain and looked like it went live.
That is true. I mention that in my last paragraph:
> The fact that it’s a public web server (with no access controls) does throw a wrench into things, but it’s not as simple as many here make it seem.
However, simply being accessible is not akin to authorization. If that company tool is accessible to the public through a misconfigured DNS, the courts probably won’t side with me asking for the source.
The law is not black and white (despite what many here think). Judges are humans and will apply judgement as to whether Truth was meant to be accessible or not.
There’s also the fact that the CFAA is a broadly worded law and could easily be wielded by Trump against the people accessing Truth prior to launch. Just say they weren’t authorized and were hacking. They’ll probably lose in court with that argument, but we won’t know until the ruling would come out
That is true. I mention that in my last paragraph:
> The fact that it’s a public web server (with no access controls) does throw a wrench into things, but it’s not as simple as many here make it seem.
However, simply being accessible is not akin to authorization. If that company tool is accessible to the public through a misconfigured DNS, the courts probably won’t side with me asking for the source.
The law is not black and white (despite what many here think). Judges are humans and will apply judgement as to whether Truth was meant to be accessible or not.
There’s also the fact that the CFAA is a broadly worded law and could easily be wielded by Trump against the people accessing Truth prior to launch. Just say they weren’t authorized and were hacking. They’ll probably lose in court with that argument, but we won’t know until the ruling would come out
> However, simply being accessible is not akin to authorization.
That’s a hard argument to push unless the judge is unbelievably biased. If the website is up and running on the expected domain, functions correctly and has no indication it’s a private beta, it’s hard to assume bad faith from the unintended users.
IIRC, the idea was tested in the early days of dial up systems and a system that was setup to not require authentication that had a “Welcome to this computer” banner was considered open enough the intruders were not considered intruders.
If you have a building and charge for entry, but there is no access control at the door, no ticket sales and no indication you need to pay to enter, can you complain someone wandered into the building without paying?
That’s a hard argument to push unless the judge is unbelievably biased. If the website is up and running on the expected domain, functions correctly and has no indication it’s a private beta, it’s hard to assume bad faith from the unintended users.
IIRC, the idea was tested in the early days of dial up systems and a system that was setup to not require authentication that had a “Welcome to this computer” banner was considered open enough the intruders were not considered intruders.
If you have a building and charge for entry, but there is no access control at the door, no ticket sales and no indication you need to pay to enter, can you complain someone wandered into the building without paying?
They have been at least somewhat modified; the default distribution has a link to the source.
> This would immediately go away...
This platform is going to be under continuous attack from all angles. The company has to be ready to be boycotted, licenses revoked, regulation enacted, smear campaigns run, deplatformed by infrastructure providers, etc. Their lawyers are going to be the more combative type, when they signed up it was pretty clear the sort of wild-eyed hate that the Trump brand is going to attract from established actors in the social media sphere.
My hope is they're just going to take 20 days to think about it then release the source code. But we'll see.
This platform is going to be under continuous attack from all angles. The company has to be ready to be boycotted, licenses revoked, regulation enacted, smear campaigns run, deplatformed by infrastructure providers, etc. Their lawyers are going to be the more combative type, when they signed up it was pretty clear the sort of wild-eyed hate that the Trump brand is going to attract from established actors in the social media sphere.
My hope is they're just going to take 20 days to think about it then release the source code. But we'll see.
I doubt there'll be much boycotting; the people who might boycott won't want to use it in the first place. Certainly no regulation will be enacted. I doubt a smear campaign, either; if it's anything like Twitter, a simple screenshot of the homepage will be enough. So the only things are:
• licenses revoked – except with free software, this can only happen if you violate the license
• deplatformed by infrastructure providers – which is part of the reason we need not to have centralisation in the first place.
As much as I dislike this former president, I expect his social media site might actually have better moderation than his Twitter followers had; for PR reasons, if nothing else. I'd rather it wasn't around, but I don't think it's worth taking it down. (Enforcing the AGPL, however? That's worth something.)
• licenses revoked – except with free software, this can only happen if you violate the license
• deplatformed by infrastructure providers – which is part of the reason we need not to have centralisation in the first place.
As much as I dislike this former president, I expect his social media site might actually have better moderation than his Twitter followers had; for PR reasons, if nothing else. I'd rather it wasn't around, but I don't think it's worth taking it down. (Enforcing the AGPL, however? That's worth something.)
> I expect his social media site might actually have better moderation than his Twitter followers had
They more or less already stated that any unflattering opinions will be deleted and the used banned from the platform.
They more or less already stated that any unflattering opinions will be deleted and the used banned from the platform.
> licenses revoked – except with free software, this can only happen if you violate the license
Eh, there _are_ commercial licenses which would have a "don't bring us into disrepute" clause, but you'd imagine they'll probably avoid those. Mind you you'd also imagine they'd avoid violating the AGPL, and yet here we are.
Eh, there _are_ commercial licenses which would have a "don't bring us into disrepute" clause, but you'd imagine they'll probably avoid those. Mind you you'd also imagine they'd avoid violating the AGPL, and yet here we are.
Sorry, I was grammatically ambiguous. Free software is the one where this can only happen if you violate the license, and it's an exception to “traditional” (proprietary) software licensing. Please read the “except” as a fancy “but”. (How dare you not pick up on my intonation‽ It was obvious in the timing of my keypresses!)
> I expect his social media site might actually have better moderation than his Twitter followers had; for PR reasons...
I expect that any and all voices that don't lavish heaps on praise upon The Former Guy to be removed without any further justification.
If that's what you mean by "moderation".
I expect that any and all voices that don't lavish heaps on praise upon The Former Guy to be removed without any further justification.
If that's what you mean by "moderation".
I think that certain classes of massive blatant bigotry will be forbidden. Perhaps not as well as Twitter, thinking about it, but still probably better than some of the other sites out there that are tailored to this demographic.
The ulterior motive of this website is simple: the immediate interests of this guy. The ulterior motives of some other websites are harder to see.
The ulterior motive of this website is simple: the immediate interests of this guy. The ulterior motives of some other websites are harder to see.
_Any_ large social network which was violating the AGPL should expect trouble.
> Their lawyers are going to be the more combative type
But probably not the more competent type, based on the prior adventures of Donald Trump. I mean, this is coming from the same people who brought you Four Seasons Total Landscaping.
> Their lawyers are going to be the more combative type
But probably not the more competent type, based on the prior adventures of Donald Trump. I mean, this is coming from the same people who brought you Four Seasons Total Landscaping.
> This would immediately go away if they just posted a tarball of the almost certainly unmodified sources.
No it wouldn't. NOTHING short of shutting down would ever satisfy the people going after Trump.
No it wouldn't. NOTHING short of shutting down would ever satisfy the people going after Trump.
Sure, but those people and these people are different.
Currently, the site is beset both by "people who are going after Trump" and "people who care about copyleft".
Posting the tarball would satisfy that second group.
Currently, the site is beset both by "people who are going after Trump" and "people who care about copyleft".
Posting the tarball would satisfy that second group.
[deleted]
They win either way. If mastodon pursues the copyright claim, they get a ton of press and probably more money from donations to fight the “woke Marxists”.
It’s a propaganda platform, not social media.
It’s a propaganda platform, not social media.
"Not publicly available" is not the same as "there is no service".
[deleted]
Besides the source code, attributions are missing if this quote is complete. The quote is not wrong I guess, but things are probably missing so the text in its entirety could be considered wrong, I guess too.
This is incorrect. Currently Truth is still internal software not available to the public, AGPL requires distribution of source code alongside the distribution of the program or service. Because Truth is only made available internally, the modified source code only has to be made available to their own company. This would change once the service does go public.
AGPL can also not be "permanently revoked". It's not individually licensed to each user like proprietary software often is, it's one license addressed to anyone. Furthermore the AGPL is explicitly irrevocable. They can change the license to a proprietary one but this does not affect existing copies under AGPL.
Last I'd like to touch on "antithetical values". If Mastodon were to discriminate against persons, groups or fields of endeavor in their license they would no longer meet the definition of open source, but rather become a source available proprietary product.
AGPL can also not be "permanently revoked". It's not individually licensed to each user like proprietary software often is, it's one license addressed to anyone. Furthermore the AGPL is explicitly irrevocable. They can change the license to a proprietary one but this does not affect existing copies under AGPL.
Last I'd like to touch on "antithetical values". If Mastodon were to discriminate against persons, groups or fields of endeavor in their license they would no longer meet the definition of open source, but rather become a source available proprietary product.
> AGPL can also not be "permanently revoked". It's not individually licensed to each user like proprietary software often is, it's one license addressed to anyone.
The license is addressed to anyone, but an individual user gets an individual license.
> Furthermore the AGPL is explicitly irrevocable.
The Mastodon authors can not choose to revoke the license, but the license itself contain clauses which specify revocation under certain conditions, and after a certain time delay. This is one of the areas in which the GPLv3 (and AGPLv3) is more lenient than the old GPLv2, which was automatically revoked instantly upon any license violation.
The license is addressed to anyone, but an individual user gets an individual license.
> Furthermore the AGPL is explicitly irrevocable.
The Mastodon authors can not choose to revoke the license, but the license itself contain clauses which specify revocation under certain conditions, and after a certain time delay. This is one of the areas in which the GPLv3 (and AGPLv3) is more lenient than the old GPLv2, which was automatically revoked instantly upon any license violation.
See section 8, "Termination":
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
Revoke may not be the legally correct word to use, but it's an informal blog post and not a legal document, and what they intended to say is clear enough.
I think that your understanding of how the licensure works is a bit off. Open source software is still individually licensed to everyone. The copyright holder retains copyright, and can terminate an individual's rights under the license as long as the license includes a termination clause. Which the AGPL does.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
Revoke may not be the legally correct word to use, but it's an informal blog post and not a legal document, and what they intended to say is clear enough.
I think that your understanding of how the licensure works is a bit off. Open source software is still individually licensed to everyone. The copyright holder retains copyright, and can terminate an individual's rights under the license as long as the license includes a termination clause. Which the AGPL does.
Interesting, I was not aware of that.
I did not take termination into account in the second paragraph. I was referring to AGPL being addressed to anyone instead of a specific party. This means that a full revocation of the license would revoke it from everyone, even though that's not possible with AGPL. This does not apply to terminating licensees as you mentioned which appears to be what they mean and is possible under condition.
But because of the lack of a violation a permanent termination in 30 days would still be invalid.
I did not take termination into account in the second paragraph. I was referring to AGPL being addressed to anyone instead of a specific party. This means that a full revocation of the license would revoke it from everyone, even though that's not possible with AGPL. This does not apply to terminating licensees as you mentioned which appears to be what they mean and is possible under condition.
But because of the lack of a violation a permanent termination in 30 days would still be invalid.
Well, be careful there, too. "Revoke" means something specific in contract law. It sounds from the way you're talking that you're trying to use a more everyday definition of the term to understand this contract.
People seem to have found an undisclosed internal address and made accounts there. Would this be an instance of “distribution of the service” in lawyer terms?
[deleted]
That is false, the site was available to the public.
> Many users were able to create accounts and use it
> the AGPLv3 requires that you provide (to every user) an opportunity to receive the entire Corresponding Source for the website based on that code. These early users did not receive that source code
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/oct/21/trump-group-agplv...
> Many users were able to create accounts and use it
> the AGPLv3 requires that you provide (to every user) an opportunity to receive the entire Corresponding Source for the website based on that code. These early users did not receive that source code
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/oct/21/trump-group-agplv...
Kinda off and I have no horses in the race but how come Mastodon has so many gambling sites and casinos as sponsors? Never knew that, feels a bit odd. Also personally not a big fan of this...
https://joinmastodon.org/sponsors
https://joinmastodon.org/sponsors
I assume they're just being used as ads? The page does say you get a logo and a non-follow link for donating.
Then again, I checked a random company, Fire Stick Tricks, and they donate to a bunch[1] of open-source projects. So maybe they're just companies that have extra money to give back?
1: https://opencollective.com/fire-stick-tricks
Then again, I checked a random company, Fire Stick Tricks, and they donate to a bunch[1] of open-source projects. So maybe they're just companies that have extra money to give back?
1: https://opencollective.com/fire-stick-tricks
Probably the same reason the WNBA sponsors are all hard liquor. You take what you can get.
Seems like they just want the back link from an important site. A lot of popular projects have some pretty sketchy sponsors, [0]
[0] https://www.android-x86.org/ [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
[0] https://www.android-x86.org/ [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
There's a large number of e-gaming companies sponsoring OSS as a means of CSR and advertising. For smaller OSS, it is the majority of corporate donations as other types of companies don't bother. It's not likely that Mastodon encouraged those donations, but other companies aren't likely to reach out.
Doing further research, Mastodon's sold out on those tiers of sponsors[0], so they're likely in the lucky position that they could pick and choose.
[0] https://sponsor.joinmastodon.org/
Doing further research, Mastodon's sold out on those tiers of sponsors[0], so they're likely in the lucky position that they could pick and choose.
[0] https://sponsor.joinmastodon.org/
ESG Investing is one of the hottest trends in investment management that aims to eliminate investments in companies that don't adhere to Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance standards. Most investment management firms are scrambling to come up with product offerings to meet the substantial demand.
So you're not alone in your feelings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social_and_corp...
So you're not alone in your feelings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social_and_corp...
Oof, so those companies were donating to OSS solely to adhere to a weird metric that only investors use? That explains everything…
Lol. Another sponsor is Mark Mitchell from https://www.bestblowjobmachines.com/
[deleted]
"On Oct 26, we sent a formal letter to Truth Social’s chief legal officer, requesting the source code to be made publicly available in compliance with the license. According to AGPLv3, after being notified by the copyright holder, Truth Social has 30 days to comply or the license may be permanently revoked."
Wouldn't a semi-malicious actor be mostly in the clear if they provided the upstream code and a statement declaring they make no modifications to the provided source directly? If so, what would the recourse be? I can't imagine a court backing a demand to reveal <malicious actor>'s production systems based on what little external evidence one would have in these circumstances.
> Wouldn't a semi-malicious actor be mostly in the clear if they provided the upstream code and a statement declaring they make no modifications to the provided source directly?
Sure, but that seems to be belied on its face by them having actually stripped the present-by-default mentions & links:
> neither the terms nor any other part of the website contained any references to Mastodon, nor any links to the source code, which are present in Mastodon’s user interface by default.
That, then, would be extremely strong evidence that they're lying, and I would expect more than enough for a legal injunction.
Sure, but that seems to be belied on its face by them having actually stripped the present-by-default mentions & links:
> neither the terms nor any other part of the website contained any references to Mastodon, nor any links to the source code, which are present in Mastodon’s user interface by default.
That, then, would be extremely strong evidence that they're lying, and I would expect more than enough for a legal injunction.
They might be running a forwarding proxy with substitution rules. I don't think AGPL would have a problem with that, even though SSPL would. (Though, let's face it: they totally modified the source code.)
Yea, but you don’t have to prove your case to get into court.
You have to be able to say, with a straight face, that you really believe that they did the thing you’re accusing them of.
So just because it’s theoretically possible that there’s a path to the facts we see without violating the license, the fact that a license violation is a plausible explanation is enough to launch a court case.
After all, the court case including the discovery process and the trial itself are all about determining the relevant facts.
You have to be able to say, with a straight face, that you really believe that they did the thing you’re accusing them of.
So just because it’s theoretically possible that there’s a path to the facts we see without violating the license, the fact that a license violation is a plausible explanation is enough to launch a court case.
After all, the court case including the discovery process and the trial itself are all about determining the relevant facts.
And if not enough for an injunction, certainly enough for an “information and belief” claim in a lawsuit, which would likely survive a motion to dismiss and get you to discovery.
> I can't imagine a court backing a demand to reveal <malicious actor>'s production systems based on what little external evidence one would have in these circumstances.
That’s not really how courts work. You don’t how to have all the evidence to support your claims when you file the lawsuit.
Rather, you can go to court saying “I have reason to believe Doe is doing thing X, it’s causing me harms Y, and we could prove it with Z”.
If the case is not dismissed at an early stage, then the discovery process is started. This gives subpoena power to both sides to discover relevant facts about the case, hold depositions under oath with relevant parties, and other means of gathering information that wouldn’t be available outside of the court process.
It’s very likely that the Truth Social source code would have to be turned over to the plaintiffs during the discovery process. Additionally, the plaintiffs lawyers would probably ask the Truth Social developers questions under oath about how the platform was developed.
The evidence gathered during discovery is what the judge would use to decide whether a license violation occurred, and to issue an order.
So, the public evidence available at the start of a civil court case doesn’t need to support the requests for relief.
That’s not really how courts work. You don’t how to have all the evidence to support your claims when you file the lawsuit.
Rather, you can go to court saying “I have reason to believe Doe is doing thing X, it’s causing me harms Y, and we could prove it with Z”.
If the case is not dismissed at an early stage, then the discovery process is started. This gives subpoena power to both sides to discover relevant facts about the case, hold depositions under oath with relevant parties, and other means of gathering information that wouldn’t be available outside of the court process.
It’s very likely that the Truth Social source code would have to be turned over to the plaintiffs during the discovery process. Additionally, the plaintiffs lawyers would probably ask the Truth Social developers questions under oath about how the platform was developed.
The evidence gathered during discovery is what the judge would use to decide whether a license violation occurred, and to issue an order.
So, the public evidence available at the start of a civil court case doesn’t need to support the requests for relief.
So they would still have 25 days left to provide the source code? Why then make a fuss now?
Why don't they just publish the source?
What's the over/under on how many times this will be pushed to the front page?
Was going to post some prior discussion links, but there are over two pages of Google results for unique HN links on the topic: https://www.google.com/search?q=news.ycombinator.com+trump+m...
Was going to post some prior discussion links, but there are over two pages of Google results for unique HN links on the topic: https://www.google.com/search?q=news.ycombinator.com+trump+m...
Until "Truth Social" has been stopped, presumably...
Or just their license violations.
Violation. And at the moment, nothing seems to be happening? Are they due to a punishment, or, according to the claims, they would just not be allowed to use the software anymore? Since they are not using it at the moment, there is nothing to see?
True, violation.
As I understand it, there's a few different possible paths here:
Currently, they are not due a punishment- they need either to publish the source code (whole thing goes away), or if they do not, then their license to use Mastodon is permanently revoked. If the use the code after that, then they might be subject to damages.
That said, it's likely that they would be able to successfully argue in court that the 30-day timer that has ostensibly started, is invalid. This would be because of the (IMO quite reasonable) point that the site was not intended for public access, and access that occurred was due to misconfiguration.
Frankly, it's annoying to me that this happened as it did, because the early access created this grey area of "does this count as a violation or is it just accidental", allowing people's personal politics to color how strictly this should be enforced. If the site had launched for real with the violation (or with the source code), everything would be much more clear-cut.
As I understand it, there's a few different possible paths here:
Currently, they are not due a punishment- they need either to publish the source code (whole thing goes away), or if they do not, then their license to use Mastodon is permanently revoked. If the use the code after that, then they might be subject to damages.
That said, it's likely that they would be able to successfully argue in court that the 30-day timer that has ostensibly started, is invalid. This would be because of the (IMO quite reasonable) point that the site was not intended for public access, and access that occurred was due to misconfiguration.
Frankly, it's annoying to me that this happened as it did, because the early access created this grey area of "does this count as a violation or is it just accidental", allowing people's personal politics to color how strictly this should be enforced. If the site had launched for real with the violation (or with the source code), everything would be much more clear-cut.
Getting into any form of discussion regarding T is unwise.
Yet I wanted to point out something
Mastodon mission has always been to provide users freedom from and alternatives to the giant faceless autocratic exploitative social media.
Or at least that is what I gleam from a search of Mastodon prior to when T ran for president.
To now state for the record that T is not supposed to use the software seems like a politically biased flip.
I also think that it is prudent to wait until launch to critique their compliance.
Usually marketing / legal comes up with copy and its get cut and pasted in.
It -may- change, it probably wont. We will have to wait and see.
I know I have replaced content for similar things right before someone hits the button and right aftwards.
I hope the organization does the right thing with attribution.
I have not visited yet, and I dont know much about Mastodons code.
If they have configured and setup an instance of Mastodon with their own graphics / content / resources. Is just that required to be published to be in compliance?
I presume people much smarter than me know they have added features and improvements to the code I certainly hope they share it.
I am 100% sure that there is a giant hoard of high profile lawyers who wants this case now and plenty of millionaires and billionairs who want to fund it. Mastodon will not have to finance the trials that might come.
Lastly the more T is seen as a martyr being kicked out everywhere the more devoted his cult followers become.
Mastodon mission has always been to provide users freedom from and alternatives to the giant faceless autocratic exploitative social media.
Or at least that is what I gleam from a search of Mastodon prior to when T ran for president.
To now state for the record that T is not supposed to use the software seems like a politically biased flip.
I also think that it is prudent to wait until launch to critique their compliance.
Usually marketing / legal comes up with copy and its get cut and pasted in.
It -may- change, it probably wont. We will have to wait and see.
I know I have replaced content for similar things right before someone hits the button and right aftwards.
I hope the organization does the right thing with attribution.
I have not visited yet, and I dont know much about Mastodons code.
If they have configured and setup an instance of Mastodon with their own graphics / content / resources. Is just that required to be published to be in compliance?
I presume people much smarter than me know they have added features and improvements to the code I certainly hope they share it.
I am 100% sure that there is a giant hoard of high profile lawyers who wants this case now and plenty of millionaires and billionairs who want to fund it. Mastodon will not have to finance the trials that might come.
Lastly the more T is seen as a martyr being kicked out everywhere the more devoted his cult followers become.
To be clear Mastodon is not claiming that T can't use their software. They very clearly state that he can absolutely use their Software so long as he abides by the license and provides attribution as well as any modifications to the source publicly so this is not in the category of a politically biased flip. It's common place license enforcement that just happens to be politically significant because the target is T.
Why should a software licence only apply after "launch"? From what I can tell, "Truth Social" is violating the AGPL if they don't hand over the source code within a thirty-day period after the request from Mastodon. If they do, fine, but if they don't, Mastodon can revoke permission to use their software.
what is T?
The former so called president of the US.
For any confused historians crawling the HN archives, just for the record Donald J Trump was the former actual president of the US.
[deleted]
the "actual" former president. Donald J. Trump
Okay, fair enough, I expected worse from the title. The "antithetical to our values" thing is silly political posturing, but the case itself seems like a pretty clear cut AGPL violation. Hope it gets worked out alright, and that across the aisle we can all agree to respect free software licenses.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having political ideas behind what you do, at the end of the day Mastodon was created for political reasons, first, to support free software, second, to create a web alternative to the shitshow that twitter tends to be.
Having that said, enforcing the AGPL rules is an activity that should be done regardless of your political ideas, if someone is violating the AGPL3 the projects have every right to ask them to comply, especially when the offenders belong to powerfull corporate groups that do have the money and the resources.
Mastodon saying "we don't like them" is an expression of honesty IMO, but not the only reason to why they want to seek legal counseling.
Having that said, enforcing the AGPL rules is an activity that should be done regardless of your political ideas, if someone is violating the AGPL3 the projects have every right to ask them to comply, especially when the offenders belong to powerfull corporate groups that do have the money and the resources.
Mastodon saying "we don't like them" is an expression of honesty IMO, but not the only reason to why they want to seek legal counseling.
I think this is about right, as long as mastodon is enforcing the requirement across all instances. I suspect that if it was enforcing this in other instances it would have said so.
What if I deployed my own node and just changed some css styling? Do I also need to somehow open source the changes?
Edit: And what if I wrap it with another service, say a CDN, that changed some behaviour and styling (proxying, path rewrite, etc)?
Edit: And what if I wrap it with another service, say a CDN, that changed some behaviour and styling (proxying, path rewrite, etc)?
1. yes.
2. I think no, but I believe this is a contentious point, and it depends on whether the "mastodon instance + CDN/proxy/whatever" constitutes a "derived work" or not.
2. I think no, but I believe this is a contentious point, and it depends on whether the "mastodon instance + CDN/proxy/whatever" constitutes a "derived work" or not.
[deleted]
Seems like the terms they quoted are boilerplate. I wouldn’t attribute this to malice.
It'll be fair not to attribute it to malice once they start following the terms of the license...until then, all we know is what we can see
The site is not officially up though.
I mean, it's _theoretically_ possible that they modified it to remove the link to the source, accidentally put it live, always intending to revert the modification before deliberately going live... but that's not winning any prizes for plausibility.
In any case 'officially up' is likely irrelevant here.
In any case 'officially up' is likely irrelevant here.
> In any case 'officially up' is likely irrelevant here.
That's not true, especially considering they took down the site as soon as it was noticed it was publicly facing.
If a company misconfigures a VPN and you're able to access an internal tool that would not be otherwise available to the public, but uses GPL code, that would not entitle you to the sources. Especially if the company immediately fixed the issue of the public having access to said internal tool, any reasonable court would side with them.
If the site re-launches without fixing the issue, though, that is a very different story.
That's not true, especially considering they took down the site as soon as it was noticed it was publicly facing.
If a company misconfigures a VPN and you're able to access an internal tool that would not be otherwise available to the public, but uses GPL code, that would not entitle you to the sources. Especially if the company immediately fixed the issue of the public having access to said internal tool, any reasonable court would side with them.
If the site re-launches without fixing the issue, though, that is a very different story.
Another thing that really should be considered here are the principles involved here...you can completely ignore 2015-current and still acknowledge the guy's long history of not paying contractors, ripping people off, going back on stuff he said, etc.. There's really no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt
Despite them being boilerplate, they come along with the removal of the existing license text. Still, I’ll reserve final judgement until 30 days pass or this letter is acknowledged.
I would. It’s table stakes to follow the licenses of your software or else you may end up in court.
Do we really have to give this guy the #1 Hacker News story? He was fading into the background so nicely.
You mean the person who was the sitting president of the united states, who got deplatformed in unison by big tech social media, and is now fighting against censorship by using tech? Yeah, that is not relevant at all to hackernews /s
That is an interestingly context free take.
What did he do? What could he possibly have done, to get that to happen? It's like I wasn't sitting a mile from the capitol watching the WTOP national mall guy hiding behind a banister while the mob from his rally battered down the doors.
What did he do? What could he possibly have done, to get that to happen? It's like I wasn't sitting a mile from the capitol watching the WTOP national mall guy hiding behind a banister while the mob from his rally battered down the doors.
I like how everyone always says "sitting President of the united states" when they mention Trump's deplatforming, as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account, or that deplatforming Trump was in some way an coup or overthrow of Trump's position as President, thus reinforcing the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy that poses a threat to national sovereignty itself.
It's these consistent, subtle details that make the Trumpist propaganda so effective. The other side needs to start taking notes.
It's these consistent, subtle details that make the Trumpist propaganda so effective. The other side needs to start taking notes.
As much as I dislike Trump, deplatforming is much more notable while he was in office than if it had happened afterwards.
I agree, though, that it does sometimes sound like it's being hinted that something more nefarious was happening when people talk about it like this.
I agree, though, that it does sometimes sound like it's being hinted that something more nefarious was happening when people talk about it like this.
But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office. You could argue that they should have booted him sooner, after a few warnings and repeated violations. And they can argue that they gave him, and other political figures, extra leeway due to their public positions and their newsworthiness. But at the end of the day he was repeatedly given special treatment that most of us would never get on any of the platforms he was banned from.
If there was anything nefarious going on it was Twitter, FB, etc. looking the other way because they knew that his violations of their terms was attracting attention and therefore making them money.
If there was anything nefarious going on it was Twitter, FB, etc. looking the other way because they knew that his violations of their terms was attracting attention and therefore making them money.
> But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office.
One of the primary issues is that Twitter has routinely granted privileged protected status to their favored political side, and refused to ban prominent people on the left that have behaved dramatically in violation of their policies [1][2]. There were a huge number of examples of it from the left during the unhinged Nick Sandermann cultural conflict for example (a wave of direct calls for violence by blue checkmarks against underage children).
Twitter has no qualms with unevenly applying their policies, so long as they're helping their political side. That has particularly been going on for four or five years non-stop at this point.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094762/spike-lee-sued-f...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top...
One of the primary issues is that Twitter has routinely granted privileged protected status to their favored political side, and refused to ban prominent people on the left that have behaved dramatically in violation of their policies [1][2]. There were a huge number of examples of it from the left during the unhinged Nick Sandermann cultural conflict for example (a wave of direct calls for violence by blue checkmarks against underage children).
Twitter has no qualms with unevenly applying their policies, so long as they're helping their political side. That has particularly been going on for four or five years non-stop at this point.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094762/spike-lee-sued-f...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top...
I certainly don't doubt there are plenty of other examples and I don't have any love for Twitter or any other SM platform these days.
But as far as I could see, only seeing the former president's tweets in the news because I'm not a Twitter user, he was also granted protected status. So I fail to see it as some leftist conspiracy and find it more likely that Twitter just allows users that attract more attention this privileged status because it's in their best interest to do so.
Honestly, I don't know who Nick Sandermann is and could not care less about what Jane Fonda and Spike Lee are up to on Twitter. You've just pointed out some great examples of why I left it behind a long time ago.
However, as a US citizen, I do care what my president gets up to, even on social media. Given it's outsized influence on our society these days, I'm probably more interested in what the president is saying on social media, where he, and every other politician, seem to be able to get away with saying things they'd never have said on mainstream television or on traditional media not that long ago.
But as far as I could see, only seeing the former president's tweets in the news because I'm not a Twitter user, he was also granted protected status. So I fail to see it as some leftist conspiracy and find it more likely that Twitter just allows users that attract more attention this privileged status because it's in their best interest to do so.
Honestly, I don't know who Nick Sandermann is and could not care less about what Jane Fonda and Spike Lee are up to on Twitter. You've just pointed out some great examples of why I left it behind a long time ago.
However, as a US citizen, I do care what my president gets up to, even on social media. Given it's outsized influence on our society these days, I'm probably more interested in what the president is saying on social media, where he, and every other politician, seem to be able to get away with saying things they'd never have said on mainstream television or on traditional media not that long ago.
What a pile of nonsense. Now I'm not an American and have no stake beyond not wanting your country to burn because it's bad for the world... but come on? Have you ever seen another president treated that way? Maybe Nixon? Imagine if he was on twitter when in office. Extra leeway lolololol. You must be a reporter or a FAANG employee with options?
I seriously doubt that former president Richard Nixon would have ever been on Twitter behaving the way our 45th president did. From what I saw the only way he was treated was to get a pass on violation after violation of Twitter's TOS.
I've yet to see any other president ever behave that way on any social media platform so I have no point of reference to either dispute or agree with what you're saying.
And no, I'm not a reporter or an employee of a tech company, please keep your inferences about my character out of the conversation.
I've yet to see any other president ever behave that way on any social media platform so I have no point of reference to either dispute or agree with what you're saying.
And no, I'm not a reporter or an employee of a tech company, please keep your inferences about my character out of the conversation.
> as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account
That's not what they're implying.
The implication is that if they can do it to the office-holder of one of the most powerful jobs in the world, they are very powerful and can do it to you.
> the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy
When lots of social media companies do the same thing at the same time, what other explanation is there?
That's not what they're implying.
The implication is that if they can do it to the office-holder of one of the most powerful jobs in the world, they are very powerful and can do it to you.
> the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy
When lots of social media companies do the same thing at the same time, what other explanation is there?
> users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site."
Sorry how does that count as "fighting against censorship?" Sounds like they can censor any user that disparages their platform (the way that Trump regularly disparaged Twitter, on Twitter.)
https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service/
Sorry how does that count as "fighting against censorship?" Sounds like they can censor any user that disparages their platform (the way that Trump regularly disparaged Twitter, on Twitter.)
https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service/
jd115(1)
This is interesting to me because it's both a high-profile violation of AGPL, and because it's (for better or for worse) a high-profile usage of Mastodon in the wild.
Gab was pretty high profile too, no?
That's also true.
Truth Social can just do what Gab did and provide a password-protected file in a public self-hosted git repository and they will be compliant.
Truth Social can just do what Gab did and provide a password-protected file in a public self-hosted git repository and they will be compliant.
As far as I know, Gab never violated AGPL, and I think a social media site backed by Trump will be a much bigger deal.
Mastodon's original developer sent a cease and desist letter to Gab on October 21 for not publishing the version of their codebase that is currently in production.[1] Gab updated their repo in one hour, and later shared the entire code tree instead of just a password protected archive file.[2]
It's really not that difficult to comply with AGPLv3. Truth Social should simply release the code and keep the repo up to date.
[1] https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/107181466903817162
[2] https://code.gab.com/gab
It's really not that difficult to comply with AGPLv3. Truth Social should simply release the code and keep the repo up to date.
[1] https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/107181466903817162
[2] https://code.gab.com/gab
I think that looking upon him as The One Who's Name We Shall Not Speak and effectively killing him on the internet will lead to him becoming a martyr among his supporters. Considering his diverse support from a number of different grass root and/or radical movements, I would say it could backfire on you, hard.
We've seen what powers he bestows. These will increase with martyrdom.
We've seen what powers he bestows. These will increase with martyrdom.
Fading into insignificance does not make him a martyr.
Trump isn't fading into insignificance at all. He still overwhelmingly dominantes the right half of US politics. The social media ban has made Trump look much better than he otherwise would have had he remained on social media and been blathering this entire time. Big tech did him a favor with the ban. And meanwhile Biden's mainstream media poll numbers have collapsed (which is to say his real numbers are even worse). He's one of the least popular presidents in the past century thus far. It's setting the stage for Trump to make a legitimate run at the presidency in 2024 if he so chooses. Biden won't be competent to run in 2024 and Harris can't beat Trump. The tactic of hiding Biden, which worked very well in terms of letting Trump punch himself out, is no longer working now that he's president and being held to a different expectation; instead, it's tanking his numbers because he's viewed as a mediocre leader.
Anyone who thinks deplatforming works should read Goebbels.
Quoting the relevant passages or mentioning the name has been getting people banned, recently from FB, Twitter, and others...
"The emperor has no clothes" ha! the skinsuit tore off and the naked Terminator machinery is on display for all to see. and its nowhere near as cool and fascinating as it was in the movies. It's just "keyword list" string match stupidity re-iterated yet again.
"The emperor has no clothes" ha! the skinsuit tore off and the naked Terminator machinery is on display for all to see. and its nowhere near as cool and fascinating as it was in the movies. It's just "keyword list" string match stupidity re-iterated yet again.
And to come full circle, anyone who reads Goebbels will be deplatformed.
Isn't it still the same America that voted for him not to long ago? Censoring reality never was good idea
Amplifying nonsense was never a good idea either.
Enjoy this brief respite, because it won't be long until he's center of attention again.
He's not fading. He's firmly in control of the party and is purging those that won't repeat his election lies.
What a surprise that those people happen to be neocons.
Somehow we're supposed to believe George W. Bush is a good guy after all.
Somehow we're supposed to believe George W. Bush is a good guy after all.
I'm confused, what do GWB or neocons have to do with a willingness to lie about elections? Are you saying those two are bad because they aren't willing to lie about it?
I think there's two ways people interpret that - when neocons and progressives (or whatever, the slimiest of both parties) end up arm in arm denouncing a guy, you can either say that guy must be really bad, or really good. ;)
My point is that he is purging neocons, and it seems you want to construe it as being all about election issues and that he was okay with them before that.
Your contention is that Trump is purging people like GA Gov Kemp because he is a neocon not because of his statements that the election was not stolen? That's a puzzling position given Trump's many, many statements mentioning Kemp and the election but none that I've seen mention neocon.
I think you're right about that one.
He often says 'RINO' or 'the swamp'.
He often says 'RINO' or 'the swamp'.
George Bush still should be dragged to the Hague, this "The Election Was Stolen" idiocy is still dangerous. Both can be true.
A lot of things can be true, but if you only focus on the things which you consider expedient, your perspective will not be balanced, and you might turn GWB and his cronies into saints, as I have seen some do.
No he is not fading into the background. He is still currently trying to overthrow the US government. He is attempting to delegitimize elections over the entire country. He is an evil man that will stop at nothing to regain power.
Man, you know how this sound like the party line against Trotsky during Stalin's time? Please, let's keep our opposition to trump decent, lest we look like ridiculous pearl clutchers
[deleted]
People never miss an opportunity to reap karma from a "Trump Bad!" story
AGPLv3 for the F _ _ _ _ _ G WIN!!!! Nice job Mastodon!
> Notably, neither the terms nor any other part of the website contained any references to Mastodon, nor any links to the source code, which are present in Mastodon’s user interface by default. Mastodon is free software published under the AGPLv3 license, which requires any over-the-network service using it to make its source code and any modifications to it publicly accessible.
> On Oct 26, we sent a formal letter to Truth Social’s chief legal officer, requesting the source code to be made publicly available in compliance with the license. According to AGPLv3, after being notified by the copyright holder, Truth Social has 30 days to comply or the license may be permanently revoked.
> Notably, neither the terms nor any other part of the website contained any references to Mastodon, nor any links to the source code, which are present in Mastodon’s user interface by default. Mastodon is free software published under the AGPLv3 license, which requires any over-the-network service using it to make its source code and any modifications to it publicly accessible.
> On Oct 26, we sent a formal letter to Truth Social’s chief legal officer, requesting the source code to be made publicly available in compliance with the license. According to AGPLv3, after being notified by the copyright holder, Truth Social has 30 days to comply or the license may be permanently revoked.
Is this actually true? The network was available just for a short time and now is not anymore.
Yeah I thought the same thing. Someone pointed out that even creating test accounts probably qualifies as "over the networks."
But it seems silly. And unless mastodon is enforcing this clause against every other instance operator, I'm guessing this is just posturing.
Having said that, I'd like them to continue posturing and getting their concept of federated social media more traction.
But it seems silly. And unless mastodon is enforcing this clause against every other instance operator, I'm guessing this is just posturing.
Having said that, I'd like them to continue posturing and getting their concept of federated social media more traction.
Good point, because similar cases have been brought against Vizio and Tesla, among other, this clearly isn't just posturing.
Brought by mastodon and against Vizio and Tesla? Or by some other entity with a similar license?
Mastodon has not sued anyone. Vizio and Tesla have both run afoul of similar GPL licensing and been called out by the same organization (SFC) that's calling out Truth Social.
So like you said, this is clearly not just posturing, Truth Social is legitimately in violation of their license agreement.
So like you said, this is clearly not just posturing, Truth Social is legitimately in violation of their license agreement.
LOL lawyers are so lawyers, always trying to claim everything to be their "proprietary property" with everything reasonably and unreasonably relevant altogether. Next they will probably sue somebody for merely looking in their code so they could even discover it has something to do with Mastodon and try to convince the judge there is no evidence which was obtained a legal way and can be taken in account this way :-]
On the other hand Trump's network might be coopted to contribute to mastodon's development, since they have apparently billions in funding. And it would be very ironic if this ends up boosting the decentralized web.
That's the shortsightedness part of it. They should have tried to get them license compliant and may be even negotiated with them to keep it compatible with Mastodon network. It would have not only helped both parties but also introduced Mastodon to more non tech users. Instead, it appears to be the typical knee-jerk reaction for woke points. So now Mastodon is liberal, left leaning and want to control what people discuss? Get in queue folks. We already got twitter and facebook for that!
> They should have tried to get them license compliant
That's precisely what Mastodon is trying to do. In fact, that's _all_ they're trying to do, as the article made clear.
That's precisely what Mastodon is trying to do. In fact, that's _all_ they're trying to do, as the article made clear.
> of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour
it is clear that they are not interested in coopting them
it is clear that they are not interested in coopting them
…and yet the only actions they’ve taken were to send a letter asking them to come into compliance with the AGPL within 30 days.
It's worth pointing out that this is much more adversarial than is typical. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles
You scrubbed the entire meaning from the sentencing by removing the context. They are saying that despite the conflict of values, principles of free software mean that the network is free to use their code provided they comply with the license. The previous paragraph makes clear the reasons why, and improvements to upstream software is a key one.
> We pride ourselves on providing software that allows anyone to run their own social media platform independent of big tech, but the condition upon which we release our work for free in the first place is the idea that, as we give to the platform operators, so do the platform operators give back to us by providing their improvements for us and everyone to see. But that doesn’t only benefit us as the developers – it benefits the people that use these platforms as it gives them insight into the functionality of the platforms that manage their data and gives them the ability to walk away and start their own.
> We pride ourselves on providing software that allows anyone to run their own social media platform independent of big tech, but the condition upon which we release our work for free in the first place is the idea that, as we give to the platform operators, so do the platform operators give back to us by providing their improvements for us and everyone to see. But that doesn’t only benefit us as the developers – it benefits the people that use these platforms as it gives them insight into the functionality of the platforms that manage their data and gives them the ability to walk away and start their own.
[deleted]
They are trying to get Truth Social to be compliant. That's the whole point.
One of Trump's biggest advantages is his enemies drastically over-react to things and end up looking stupid.
GPL violations are a serious business and Mastodon is well within their rights to ask for the code to be released. But the business hasn't even opened yet and they're already waving permanent revocation around. This sort of aggression in enforcing the GPL may actually be unprecedented.
GPL violations are a serious business and Mastodon is well within their rights to ask for the code to be released. But the business hasn't even opened yet and they're already waving permanent revocation around. This sort of aggression in enforcing the GPL may actually be unprecedented.
But it is correct. I would love for all violations to be policed like this. I didn’t take time away from my family and life for someone else to profit. I did it ONLY because I’d knew what GPL would enforce.
The business opening or not does not matter here. GPL is enforced on the moment you publish underneath that license.
The business opening or not does not matter here. GPL is enforced on the moment you publish underneath that license.
It may not actually be correct if nobody who has access to the beta website has actually requested the code.
They had the mastodon logo shown at some point appear in one of the pages.
OK? As far as I know, AGPL only requires code to be provided upon request. If people in the beta test have not requested the code there may not be a violation.
What exactly are you hoping for or missing? No actual harm has been done to anybody. If "Truth Social" was online for real it would be different, but now? The beta users presumably didn't mind that they didn't have the source code.
I think the Mastodon people are merely hoping they can stop Trump, they are not really concerned about getting the source code.
I think the Mastodon people are merely hoping they can stop Trump, they are not really concerned about getting the source code.
GPL does not differentiate between beta and not. You use GPL code - you release anything build on top of it. Simple as that. Anyone can request a copy of their source and should get it. Doesn’t matter if it’s in beta or not as long as it’s licensed under GPL. Even if it’s internal software. Don’t like it - go build from scratch and use some other software but don’t break the license agreement just because you are lazy and can’t be bothered to write your own code.
I don't think that's correct. Unless you publish it, you don't have to release anything. Otherwise it would be madness.
Also my question was more about why that specific concern about the license - why did you pick AGPL instead of GPL and why do you care so much about that specific case?
Also my question was more about why that specific concern about the license - why did you pick AGPL instead of GPL and why do you care so much about that specific case?
Yeah I remember all those lectures about over reaction and we ended up with an insurrection and an entire half of our country convinced an election was stolen.
[snark]Almost lost the Republic on Jan 6th to a whole lot of shoving.[/snark]
But more seriously it looks like the government is having a hell of a time convicting anyone there of more than mischief and trespassing.
But more seriously it looks like the government is having a hell of a time convicting anyone there of more than mischief and trespassing.
> [snark]Almost lost the Republic on Jan 6th to a whole lot of shoving.[/snark]
Snark aside, the danger of Jan 6 was not shoving - It was people deciding to do the wrong thing in the name of gaining power.
The insurrectionists who organized January 6 (yes it was planned) were at the Willard Hotel in a number of suites they called a "War Room" (yes, their words). The entire plan was to delay certification of Joe Biden's victory to give state legislatures time to arrange an alternate slate of electors to be sent to the Capitol. This delay was achieved via a violent mob directed at the Capitol. A delay happened by it wasn't long enough, so the effort failed.
But it almost succeeded. They wanted to push Pence in the direction of refusing to certify Biden's 2020 win, thereby kicking the decision to state delegates, of which Republicans controlled a majority. Obviously they would have voted for Trump over Biden.
This is how autocracy happens in America: a president who loses both the popular vote and electoral college, appointed by a political party on the basis of fraudulent claims of fraud. No elections will be trusted by either side after that happens.
Snark aside, the danger of Jan 6 was not shoving - It was people deciding to do the wrong thing in the name of gaining power.
The insurrectionists who organized January 6 (yes it was planned) were at the Willard Hotel in a number of suites they called a "War Room" (yes, their words). The entire plan was to delay certification of Joe Biden's victory to give state legislatures time to arrange an alternate slate of electors to be sent to the Capitol. This delay was achieved via a violent mob directed at the Capitol. A delay happened by it wasn't long enough, so the effort failed.
But it almost succeeded. They wanted to push Pence in the direction of refusing to certify Biden's 2020 win, thereby kicking the decision to state delegates, of which Republicans controlled a majority. Obviously they would have voted for Trump over Biden.
This is how autocracy happens in America: a president who loses both the popular vote and electoral college, appointed by a political party on the basis of fraudulent claims of fraud. No elections will be trusted by either side after that happens.
I’m sorry but I chuckled a bit. In my last company our corporate legal used to ask us not to call our conference room the “war room” - it might imply anticompetitive actions. I rolled my eyes but apparently I was wrong in thinking that was a ridiculous statement.
And the fact that the Democrats argued that Trumps 2016 election and Bush’s election was “suspect” if not “fradulent” doesn’t do much to bolster your argument.
The pearl clutching is pretty obvious.
And the fact that the Democrats argued that Trumps 2016 election and Bush’s election was “suspect” if not “fradulent” doesn’t do much to bolster your argument.
The pearl clutching is pretty obvious.
> No elections will be trusted by either side after that happens.
This is the Democrats fault. Their shoe-in candidate lost and they spent four years bleating that Trump was illegitimate and failed to prove it with a far reaching investigation. _That_ is where trust started to be lost.
This is the Democrats fault. Their shoe-in candidate lost and they spent four years bleating that Trump was illegitimate and failed to prove it with a far reaching investigation. _That_ is where trust started to be lost.
The Muller report and Senate Report on Russian Active Measures (I posted links earlier, but you've already read them I assume: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29080495) show that Trump and Russians coordinated efforts, made secret deals, delivered on quid pro quo arrangements, and yes even shared information during the 2016 election. And they lied about it all, destroyed evidence, and obstructed the investigations into their activity. You can characterize objections to such behavior as "bleating", but it doesn't change the fact that the Trump campaign worked with Russian intelligence as they hacked the DNC. There is still no explanation for Trump's campaign manager handing internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer, other than collusion.
Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theories to me. If it was so awful why didn’t the FBI do anything about it? Because it was a big nothing-burger.
There's no theory presented here, just a list of things that happened according to the Special Counsel and Congress. There's no mystery about what went on, and yeah, it's also clear that no one cares. Because that's the world we live in now, and I'm okay with that. But let's just be clear about where we are right now: a campaign for President coordinated with a foreign power as that power was hacking the campaign's opponent in the election, and they lied about it to everyone. That's okay behavior now, because as you said, the FBI did nothing. The Attorney General read the report I linked to and concluded the behavior was perfectly normal. But that doesn't make the charges of Russian collusion a "lie", as some have spun the results of those investigations. If Trump's campaign handing internal campaign data to Russian intelligence officers isn't collusion, the word has lost all meaning.
I mean, this isn't even the product of some partisan hit job on Trump. This is the result of two Republican-led investigations. One, led by a fmr Republican FBI director appointed by a Republican deputy AG, who in turn was appointed by Trump himself; the other written by the Republican majority and chaired Senate Intel committee. It's really easy to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" or "witch hunt" as the then President tried very hard to call it, but Republicans and Democrats both agree on the facts in these reports. They are not lies. They are not conspiracy theories. And yes, they are also a nothing-burger, because the behavior is now normalized. That's how presidential campaigns will be run from here on out basically thanks to this whole issue, and no one should be surprised when Democrats do it.
I mean, this isn't even the product of some partisan hit job on Trump. This is the result of two Republican-led investigations. One, led by a fmr Republican FBI director appointed by a Republican deputy AG, who in turn was appointed by Trump himself; the other written by the Republican majority and chaired Senate Intel committee. It's really easy to dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" or "witch hunt" as the then President tried very hard to call it, but Republicans and Democrats both agree on the facts in these reports. They are not lies. They are not conspiracy theories. And yes, they are also a nothing-burger, because the behavior is now normalized. That's how presidential campaigns will be run from here on out basically thanks to this whole issue, and no one should be surprised when Democrats do it.
[deleted]
I have to agree. They didn't explicitly lie like Trump did/does, but they (or at least, Hilary specifically) did repeatedly mention that they "won the popular vote" as if it was relevant - they wanted to imply the same thing, that Trumps presidency was unfair if not illegitimate.
[deleted]
I would hazard to bet that most of those people involved in the insurrection only did so because of the number of violent protests that were met with underreaction in the previous year.
Still, america is a nation of extremes, and if something doesn't go their way they're all very quick to jump to "its a conspiracy against us" conclusion. A union bound together by nothing is doomed to fall apart from the slightest push.
Still, america is a nation of extremes, and if something doesn't go their way they're all very quick to jump to "its a conspiracy against us" conclusion. A union bound together by nothing is doomed to fall apart from the slightest push.
One man's insurrection is another man's mostly peaceful protest.
The previous election was also accused to be stolen. If you look at tweets, both parties had complete trust in election integrity when it fitted their narrative and it was a complete fraud when it was convenient.
Do you remember the Russian hackers?
Given how crappy USA election practices are (no voter IDs? mail ballot? workers counting ballots without witnesses?) I'm pretty sure there were instances of election fraud in both cases, it's just hard to establish how much it affected the result.
Given how crappy USA election practices are (no voter IDs? mail ballot? workers counting ballots without witnesses?) I'm pretty sure there were instances of election fraud in both cases, it's just hard to establish how much it affected the result.
It's a shame that the parties don't think ahead. When one party pushes for better election practices, the other should roll over, because next election it will benefit them and this election it won't matter.
That is extremely hypocritical as the never-Trumpers claimed for 4 years Trump was an illegitimate President and continue to do so even after a multi-year investigation failed to prove any claim to that effect was true.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This persons point is being proved by the downvotes. Get a grip HN.
Where's the "advantage" in this instance?
I agree with you. The following is my opinion of what happened, not an endorsement.
Trump's role in our history was primarily a f-you to the established players in both parties. He won because he made all the right people mad. And the more his enemies drastically over-react the more powerful he becomes.
Trump's role in our history was primarily a f-you to the established players in both parties. He won because he made all the right people mad. And the more his enemies drastically over-react the more powerful he becomes.
But for all that superficial posturing, he accomplished very little of his agenda and generally ended up trying to play ball anyway. The anti-establishment game lasted until he entered the white House.
His primary accomplishment was building a base of angry people.
His primary accomplishment was building a base of angry people.
Strongly disagree. You have to remember democratic politics is about turning a massive ship in a new direction. Unless you’re willing to start shooting people democracy moves in increments.
I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media [Trump’s antagonism exposed just how partisan it is across the board], 2) the US strategy with regards to China [Biden seems to be quietly adopting many aspects], 3) a significant adjustment of tax strategy and offshoring of profits [it was a major shift in how offshore profits are treated], 4) healthcare regulations [hospital price transparency and drug pricing had some people shitting bricks and it’s just started].
Now you can argue those moves were bad, but to argue nothing changed is short-sighted.
It’s not that dissimilar to a large corporation. I’ve seen leaders (not even CEOs) push in a certain direction and it’s clear years later it made an impact.
I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media [Trump’s antagonism exposed just how partisan it is across the board], 2) the US strategy with regards to China [Biden seems to be quietly adopting many aspects], 3) a significant adjustment of tax strategy and offshoring of profits [it was a major shift in how offshore profits are treated], 4) healthcare regulations [hospital price transparency and drug pricing had some people shitting bricks and it’s just started].
Now you can argue those moves were bad, but to argue nothing changed is short-sighted.
It’s not that dissimilar to a large corporation. I’ve seen leaders (not even CEOs) push in a certain direction and it’s clear years later it made an impact.
> I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media, 2) the US strategy with regards to China, 3) a significant adjustment of tax strategy and offshoring of profits, 4) healthcare regulations.
These are ephemeral changes, the type that flap back and forth frequently with presidential changes.
That's why things like ACA are far more monumental - they're codified, much harder to undo.
Trust in media has been in steady decline for decades now.
These are ephemeral changes, the type that flap back and forth frequently with presidential changes.
That's why things like ACA are far more monumental - they're codified, much harder to undo.
Trust in media has been in steady decline for decades now.
States are actively implementing nullification of federal laws. Some blue states are illegal immigrant sanctuary states. Some red states are federal gun law sanctuaries. Marijuana sanctuaries abound. People in positions of power are openly discussing more nullification and even national divorce.
You don't repeal laws, you nullify them. The ACA is small potatoes in that regard. They're not coming for the ACA, they're coming for the whole union.
You don't repeal laws, you nullify them. The ACA is small potatoes in that regard. They're not coming for the ACA, they're coming for the whole union.
What you're discussing is nothing new. State marijuana decriminalization has existed for decades, states have selectively chosen to enforce immigration laws differently for even longer.
What state gun laws are intended to supersede or nullify federal ones?
None of this is new or shocking. It's largely the way the republic has operated from day one.
What state gun laws are intended to supersede or nullify federal ones?
None of this is new or shocking. It's largely the way the republic has operated from day one.
3 out of the 4 are backed by legislation?
I count two. Regardless, but not the kind that has (or would have to) survive constitutional challenge. In four years they barely made a dent on ACA, and that was a critical part of the mission statement.
Either could be reversed, as has happened in previous administration changes. Our tax code and rates are pretty malleable, if the last forty years is any indication.
Either could be reversed, as has happened in previous administration changes. Our tax code and rates are pretty malleable, if the last forty years is any indication.
I don't think the primary concern of his voter base was advancing their political agenda. I believe the anger was the whole point, and they got it by the truck loads.
There was no reason to believe that they would get what they wanted policy-wise from a Democrat or from a different Republican candidate. The next best thing is to make all of the bad people angry, which they did get.
There was no reason to believe that they would get what they wanted policy-wise from a Democrat or from a different Republican candidate. The next best thing is to make all of the bad people angry, which they did get.
Did they? One would assume if the "bad people" (the establishment, 'The Swamp') got so angry, there might be change in some way.
If any of the criticism had gone beyond the level of "crooked Hillary" then I could buy this theory of Trump as expose. But it never did.
If any of the criticism had gone beyond the level of "crooked Hillary" then I could buy this theory of Trump as expose. But it never did.
It's not like they would've complained if they'd gotten some of their policies advanced, but that was not the point.
The point was that he said things like "kung flu" and it drove the bad people insane. Or "I can't call Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas any more because she's not an Indian."
The point was that he said things like "kung flu" and it drove the bad people insane. Or "I can't call Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas any more because she's not an Indian."
I have a hard time believing that the entire point was to temporarily bother people. I mean literally every president does this just by virtue of American partisanship.
I think the goal was a transformative presidency that cemented Trump as one of the best presidents. But he just didn't have the aptitude to pull that off.
I think the goal was a transformative presidency that cemented Trump as one of the best presidents. But he just didn't have the aptitude to pull that off.
The First Step Act was a major push towards criminal justice reform - something all parties claim they'll do but don't deliver on.
Also his tax reform led to lower and middle class families paying significantly less federal income taxes while at the same time increasing treasury deposits.
Tax reform and criminal justice reform were part of his agenda and those were accomplishments.
Also his tax reform led to lower and middle class families paying significantly less federal income taxes while at the same time increasing treasury deposits.
Tax reform and criminal justice reform were part of his agenda and those were accomplishments.
He salted the Supreme Court. He also destroyed US credibility.
His entire term was a wake up: we have all tied ourselves to a ship that is not unsinkable.
His entire term was a wake up: we have all tied ourselves to a ship that is not unsinkable.
> He salted the Supreme Court.
That's what his supporters thought/hoped but I'd say that didn't really pan out the way they thought, either.
That's what his supporters thought/hoped but I'd say that didn't really pan out the way they thought, either.
> he accomplished very little of his agenda
That depends on what you believe Trump's agenda was.
I hope you're not taking his 2016 electoral campaign statements regarding what his agenda is at face value...
That depends on what you believe Trump's agenda was.
I hope you're not taking his 2016 electoral campaign statements regarding what his agenda is at face value...
> I hope you're not taking his 2016 electoral campaign statements regarding what his agenda is at face value...
Is that a joke? What on earth would you judge someone on (with regards to their agenda) other than the commitments they make as a candidate?
I don’t care about whether someone accomplished a “secret unpublished” agenda, if it’s all revealed after the fact.
Obviously, I care about the changes made during the presidential term, but when it comes to “evaluating whether they fulfilled their agenda”, it seems farcical to say “I hope you weren’t actually considering the public commitments they made about their agenda”
Is that a joke? What on earth would you judge someone on (with regards to their agenda) other than the commitments they make as a candidate?
I don’t care about whether someone accomplished a “secret unpublished” agenda, if it’s all revealed after the fact.
Obviously, I care about the changes made during the presidential term, but when it comes to “evaluating whether they fulfilled their agenda”, it seems farcical to say “I hope you weren’t actually considering the public commitments they made about their agenda”
> I hope you're not taking his 2016 electoral campaign statements regarding what his agenda is at face value...
If not that, then ... what?
Not much got done, certainly not in the spirit of lasting change or advancing conservative agendas.
If not that, then ... what?
Not much got done, certainly not in the spirit of lasting change or advancing conservative agendas.
He was an ok president, despite what the media say.
He didn't wreck the economy like democrats do, but he didn't cut spending which is the only sane thing to do.
We needed a Ron Paul, not Trump. Unfortunately governments are a reflection of people and most people are pissed at the government. Trump didn't create angry people, he channeled the anti establishment sentiment like Berlusconi did 30 years ago in Italy. Most likely, once they became the establishment the found out the system is engineered to be impossible to dismantle from the inside.
The only way out of this increasingly huge government is collapse.
He didn't wreck the economy like democrats do, but he didn't cut spending which is the only sane thing to do.
We needed a Ron Paul, not Trump. Unfortunately governments are a reflection of people and most people are pissed at the government. Trump didn't create angry people, he channeled the anti establishment sentiment like Berlusconi did 30 years ago in Italy. Most likely, once they became the establishment the found out the system is engineered to be impossible to dismantle from the inside.
The only way out of this increasingly huge government is collapse.
Democrats effect on the economy is mixed just like Republicans, and the truth is that the president does not actually control very much when it comes to what markets are doing. If the economy is good they take credit for it and if the economy is bad they blame the last president if they were of a different party.
Government tends to grow under every administration because that's what all the incentives inside government encourage. You get what you incentivize.
Libertarianism is a political loser because a libertarian political platform would ultimately be about making politics and thus politicians less important. No career politician is going to really do that, and you can't get to high office without making it a career unless you're a fluke like Trump. I think a lot of people supported him for that reason, but unfortunately he was the wrong kind of fluke.
BTW the worst president of the last 100 years was not Trump. It was George W Bush for the Iraq war alone. Trump was obnoxious and might have been dangerous if he had more actual power, but he did not do anything to even approach the damage Bush did with that decision. I also doubt there would have been a President Trump had Bush not burned the US' reputation to the ground.
Government tends to grow under every administration because that's what all the incentives inside government encourage. You get what you incentivize.
Libertarianism is a political loser because a libertarian political platform would ultimately be about making politics and thus politicians less important. No career politician is going to really do that, and you can't get to high office without making it a career unless you're a fluke like Trump. I think a lot of people supported him for that reason, but unfortunately he was the wrong kind of fluke.
BTW the worst president of the last 100 years was not Trump. It was George W Bush for the Iraq war alone. Trump was obnoxious and might have been dangerous if he had more actual power, but he did not do anything to even approach the damage Bush did with that decision. I also doubt there would have been a President Trump had Bush not burned the US' reputation to the ground.
As painfully admitted by the comments here, it is virtually impossible for them to stop talking about Donald J. Trump and they have to even resort to censoring themselves as if he never existed.
So it just means that Donald J. Trump is in their minds 'rent-free'; forever.
So it just means that Donald J. Trump is in their minds 'rent-free'; forever.
It's true, people do talk about presidents after their terms.
If classifying that as "rent-free" makes people feel better more power to them.
If classifying that as "rent-free" makes people feel better more power to them.
I know a lot of smart, logical people who lose all sense of thought process when it comes to Trump. Not sure why people act like that. I would never vote for the guy but at least I can keep my head on when discussing him.
[deleted]
This is good for Mastodon who will be more recognisable after this event
any publicity is good I guess, but reading their spiel left me with a bad impression of their style. But whatever.. kind of hate all social media (in the fb, twitter, Parler, TS) sense of the term anyway, so probably predisposed to think little of a posturing platform company anyway.
Con man who made his money (when he made it) stiffing contractors, running a fake university, and abusing bankruptcy laws stiffs software authors. Big surprise.
Truth social is, as far as I'm aware, not launched. Thus I'm curious whether the AGPL "if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there" has really been triggered.
Edit: This was based on the https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html explanation of the AGPL but the quote is not present in the license itself.
Edit: This was based on the https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html explanation of the AGPL but the quote is not present in the license itself.
They didn’t ‘officially launch’ but the platform was up and running. There isn’t a ‘you don’t need to comply if it’s an alpha test’ clause in the AGPL.
I initially had some misunderstandings based on the lay-explanations of the license. I think I finally have a correct understanding now.
The relevant portion of AGPL is section 13. "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source".
Notice that the right to receive the source code belongs to the user. Not to the upstream author. So if you do run a private test, then only the people in your test have that right. Since this was not intended to be public, you could argue that the public does not have a right to the source.
Now if the program did not offer the source to the legitimate users that is indeed a violation, but the way to cure it is to offer the legitimate users the source.
The relevant portion of AGPL is section 13. "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source".
Notice that the right to receive the source code belongs to the user. Not to the upstream author. So if you do run a private test, then only the people in your test have that right. Since this was not intended to be public, you could argue that the public does not have a right to the source.
Now if the program did not offer the source to the legitimate users that is indeed a violation, but the way to cure it is to offer the legitimate users the source.
[deleted]
If you don't legally have access to the platform, you have no claim on license enforcement.
The platform wasn't officially launched, and the accounts were used by exploiting a misconfigured page.
They are under no obligation to release the source code, yet.
The platform wasn't officially launched, and the accounts were used by exploiting a misconfigured page.
They are under no obligation to release the source code, yet.
Exactly. Truth Social could actually sue any one claiming they used the platform for abusing a security flaw to obtain and maintain access to a protected computer system. That would be hilarious.
There might even also be a case for libel.
> the accounts were used by exploiting a misconfigured page
This is an important detail; is this absolutely proven?
This is an important detail; is this absolutely proven?
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/hacker-trump-truth-social/
> Armed with the app developer’s name, the hacker told the Daily Dot that they were able to utilize Shodan, a search engine that locates servers exposed to the open internet, to track down the company’s digital footprint.
> The hacker was able to locate numerous web domains as a result, including one that appeared to be running the mobile beta for Truth Social.
> News of the public website quickly spread across social media after making its way to Canadian hacker Aubrey “Kirtaner” Cottle, who was able to set up faux accounts for numerous high-profile individuals such as QAnon guru Ron Watkins.
Whether that counts as misconfigured idk, but these are certainly not normal users doing normal user things.
> Armed with the app developer’s name, the hacker told the Daily Dot that they were able to utilize Shodan, a search engine that locates servers exposed to the open internet, to track down the company’s digital footprint.
> The hacker was able to locate numerous web domains as a result, including one that appeared to be running the mobile beta for Truth Social.
> News of the public website quickly spread across social media after making its way to Canadian hacker Aubrey “Kirtaner” Cottle, who was able to set up faux accounts for numerous high-profile individuals such as QAnon guru Ron Watkins.
Whether that counts as misconfigured idk, but these are certainly not normal users doing normal user things.
I fail to see how a website that's not up yet is violating any licenses, can anyone tell me more about this ?
The article states it was made available to a small subset of people.
I guess distribution is distribution even if it just handing a USB stick to a friend.
I guess distribution is distribution even if it just handing a USB stick to a friend.
Has any person who has access to the site actually requested the source code? If not then there is no license violation right?
I don’t know. I’m not privy to the private communications of the users nor do I have the legal expertise to understand the validity of the terms and conditions of a license.
Regardless I just see this announcement as a pre emptive move by the developers of Mastodon to compel the owners of Truth Social to comply with their license moving forward.
Regardless I just see this announcement as a pre emptive move by the developers of Mastodon to compel the owners of Truth Social to comply with their license moving forward.
The website was up, and claimed it was running proprietary software.
Mastodon has also banned Gab and others from the network that they disagree with. The whole point of a federated system is free speech... yet they have spent a lot of time trying to kick out people who disagree with them.
Frankly, it’s disheartening I want to know what the communists, fascists, republicans, democrats, racists, religious, technocrats, etc want to say.
It’s so frustrating having everyone in bubbles and getting banned for speaking about topics. The most calls for hate and violence I’ve seen are on Twitter and not from the right lol...
Frankly, it’s disheartening I want to know what the communists, fascists, republicans, democrats, racists, religious, technocrats, etc want to say.
It’s so frustrating having everyone in bubbles and getting banned for speaking about topics. The most calls for hate and violence I’ve seen are on Twitter and not from the right lol...
It really never ceases to amaze me how few people actually seem to value freedom of speech. Almost everyone claims to until someone says something they disagree with.
I guess I'm not sure the problem is technological any more. If public sentiment towards freedom of speech doesn't change it doesn't really matter if a truly free platform exists or not. If 99% of people don't want freedom of speech then these platforms will inevitably become radicalised cesspools only used by the 1% who have opinions which they can't express elsewhere. Subsequently if these platforms become popular enough they'll inevitably be censored in one way or another by the 99% who disapprove.
I'm with you, I like to know what the radicals are saying. I actually find a lot of the mainstream arguments against radical belief systems to be very poor and this actually re-enforces the beliefs these communities hold. I personally believe if we tried to understand some of the grievances these people have and then tried to actually provide solutions to their problems we wouldn't see half as much radicalisation. Instead we try to silence and shame these individuals then dismiss their grievances with stupid arguments which only demonstrate to them that we have no understanding or interest in their problems. It's really no surprise that radical online communities seem to be growing with censorship. No one changes their beliefs because someone censors and shames them.
I guess I'm not sure the problem is technological any more. If public sentiment towards freedom of speech doesn't change it doesn't really matter if a truly free platform exists or not. If 99% of people don't want freedom of speech then these platforms will inevitably become radicalised cesspools only used by the 1% who have opinions which they can't express elsewhere. Subsequently if these platforms become popular enough they'll inevitably be censored in one way or another by the 99% who disapprove.
I'm with you, I like to know what the radicals are saying. I actually find a lot of the mainstream arguments against radical belief systems to be very poor and this actually re-enforces the beliefs these communities hold. I personally believe if we tried to understand some of the grievances these people have and then tried to actually provide solutions to their problems we wouldn't see half as much radicalisation. Instead we try to silence and shame these individuals then dismiss their grievances with stupid arguments which only demonstrate to them that we have no understanding or interest in their problems. It's really no surprise that radical online communities seem to be growing with censorship. No one changes their beliefs because someone censors and shames them.
I also found it deeply amusing that the "fediverse" proclaimed its diversity with "look at all the banned nodes!"
I peeked at the Mastodon code and it gave me a headache before I got through the "required for installation" section. Makes me want to go set up an RBBS node again.
I peeked at the Mastodon code and it gave me a headache before I got through the "required for installation" section. Makes me want to go set up an RBBS node again.
The fediverse was not about diversity in the first place, its main purpose is to decentralize power from one platform owner to various instances with their own rules. Since each instance can have their own whitelists/blacklists for other instances, there can be less diversity of what people you meet, but people have their own preferences.
If you want a platform where people from all political sides come together (and fight via quote tweets and ratios), then Twitter is your best bet. But not everyone wants to have that experience, and I’ve seen people move to Mastodon to escape from that and have a more curated, closely-knit experience.
If you want a platform where people from all political sides come together (and fight via quote tweets and ratios), then Twitter is your best bet. But not everyone wants to have that experience, and I’ve seen people move to Mastodon to escape from that and have a more curated, closely-knit experience.
Welcome to humanity and our inherent tribalism.
If I understand correctly, a) the license requires people who use mastodon "over the network" to meet certain requirements and b) the site is not yet live or being used "over the network." If my understanding is correct, the whole story and the commentary linked are a waste of time and I have to question the motives of anyone pushing either. What am I missing?
Open-but-only-if-we-like-you-Source
There are licenses like this, but AGPL is not one of them.
> They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct
That's called a proprietary software license. Usage restrictions disqualify software as free software or open source. This kind of restriction makes me cringe, and I wish someone would just defy these guys and dare them to actually take the issue to court. I don't think they would.
That's called a proprietary software license. Usage restrictions disqualify software as free software or open source. This kind of restriction makes me cringe, and I wish someone would just defy these guys and dare them to actually take the issue to court. I don't think they would.
What happens if a software license is revoked? E.g. what are the teeth behind OSS licenses?
At surface level, a violated license becomes a standard copyright issue, same as you might expect if you acquired AWS source code and tried to sell your own Copyzon Web Services using their code.
(disclaimer: not your lawyer, not law advice)
(disclaimer: not your lawyer, not law advice)
It is very likely Robert Colbert is behind this. Gab uses Mastadon as well. He worked on several projects for Trump and other conservatives. He appears to be very nationalistic.
Trump MADE twitter. I have a 3 letter twitter account from 05 or 06 when it was beta. Until Trump was on Twitter in 15 I considered it a big yawn that made no money -- gossip for total retards. Hate him or love him, and with Trump there doesn't seem to be any middle ground, this would have MADE mastodon into SOMETHING instead it is STILL an irrelevant pet project. Maybe they are afraid of losing too many arguments? Only reason to ban those who disagree with you. The license is just being used as an excuse. The rights holders don't even believe their own arguments they are just trying to stake out a plausible position. Phonies.
The instance in question was taken down almost as soon as it was discovered. And still the headlines keep coming. That's how strong the Trump name is.
Antithetical to your values why, because it’s supposedly going to be a free speech website (I’ll believe it when I see it), as opposed to the tightly moderated fediverse instances? Or is it just the guy? Or something else?
Anyway, it hasn’t launched yet, so why can’t this post wait until then?
Anyway, it hasn’t launched yet, so why can’t this post wait until then?
> why can’t this post wait until then?
The group announcing signing a merger agreement with a now-two-billion-dollar SPAC [1] is the likely spark. It's an announcement of a change in economic magnitude. That can make previously-ignorable mistakes meaningful to pursue.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/trump-linked-spac-shares-soa...
The group announcing signing a merger agreement with a now-two-billion-dollar SPAC [1] is the likely spark. It's an announcement of a change in economic magnitude. That can make previously-ignorable mistakes meaningful to pursue.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/trump-linked-spac-shares-soa...
I understand. But can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist?
There is no indication that the website will infringe on this licence yet… it hasn’t launched yet!
There is no indication that the website will infringe on this licence yet… it hasn’t launched yet!
> can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist?
The website did exist. Users created accounts and demanded a copy of the source. They were refused, and so the license was infringed. Mastodon isn't threatening legal action. They're asking for that refusal to be reversed, thereby curing the infringement.
The website did exist. Users created accounts and demanded a copy of the source. They were refused, and so the license was infringed. Mastodon isn't threatening legal action. They're asking for that refusal to be reversed, thereby curing the infringement.
I had the same question- "Does taking down the website cure the violation?"
Here's the relevant clause in GPLv3:
> You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
> However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
Basically- the website WAS in violation, and Mastodon is within their rights to permanently withdraw the license following their 30-day notice. I think the key here is the difference between "cease violation", with truth.social has done by taking down the site, and "cure the violation", which refers to correcting the earlier violation by distributing the source as it existed at that time. Without "curing" the previous violation, then truth.social cannot launch again with any modified version of Mastodon, as their license will be permanently revoked.
That said, there's leeway involved due to truth.social not being intentionally public. On one hand, "people were able to access it and make accounts", on the other hand, gaining access to some company's internal GPL tool because they misconfigured a VPN does not entitle you to source for that tool (and you violated the CFAA). It's a question for the courts, but it probably doesn't really matter because one of three things will happen:
1) truth.social will re-launch with no Mastodon code, and doesn't care if their Mastodon license is revoked.
2) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will provide their sources, and the whole thing goes away.
3) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will NOT provide the sources, and Mastodon has a much stronger legal leg to stand on.
Here's the relevant clause in GPLv3:
> You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
> However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
Basically- the website WAS in violation, and Mastodon is within their rights to permanently withdraw the license following their 30-day notice. I think the key here is the difference between "cease violation", with truth.social has done by taking down the site, and "cure the violation", which refers to correcting the earlier violation by distributing the source as it existed at that time. Without "curing" the previous violation, then truth.social cannot launch again with any modified version of Mastodon, as their license will be permanently revoked.
That said, there's leeway involved due to truth.social not being intentionally public. On one hand, "people were able to access it and make accounts", on the other hand, gaining access to some company's internal GPL tool because they misconfigured a VPN does not entitle you to source for that tool (and you violated the CFAA). It's a question for the courts, but it probably doesn't really matter because one of three things will happen:
1) truth.social will re-launch with no Mastodon code, and doesn't care if their Mastodon license is revoked.
2) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will provide their sources, and the whole thing goes away.
3) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will NOT provide the sources, and Mastodon has a much stronger legal leg to stand on.
If mastodon is holding all mastodon instance operators to that standard you have a point. Are they?
The licence says "over the network" but it hasn't launched. I realize some people have made test accounts, so I suppose there's an issue there if they've made issues of similar behavior before, but I don't see how the merger agreement is relevant to the license.
so far most (all?) attempts to create a “conservative” social network end up as sites with large nazi userbases
either way, some people are already using the site and the license should apply - the source needs to be available to all of them
either way, some people are already using the site and the license should apply - the source needs to be available to all of them
hardly any worse than pure vileness of twitter.
I get that you're being glib, and I'm not fan of twitter... but openly supporting ethnic genocide is a lot worse than anything going on with twitter.
what site do “the nazis” use now? Do they just keep to themselves? or do they use other nazi forums.
chan sites, gab, some forums on tor... I'm honestly not sure if they're trying to hurt conservatives or if the continual embedding into conservative social platforms is an attempt to cling to relevancy?
I don't think all conservatives are nazis by any means, but I'm not a fan of the "any vote we can get" tactics that are hesitant to admonish white supremacy
I don't think all conservatives are nazis by any means, but I'm not a fan of the "any vote we can get" tactics that are hesitant to admonish white supremacy
I think they are fusing, conservatives and racism have almost always been correlated, so there is a common ground.
Having that said, nazism and republican conservatism are surprisingly different, say, nazis are anti jews, conservatives are anti mexicans. Again, there is a common ground.
Having that said, nazism and republican conservatism are surprisingly different, say, nazis are anti jews, conservatives are anti mexicans. Again, there is a common ground.
tamaharbor(1)
foxhop(2)
Feel like title is click bait. At least I immediately thought that Mastodon had special clause that Ol' Trumpster was violating, but just not publishing source.
Yeah this is license violation, but pretty minor, very common, and harmless (assuming they do release the source now that they are made aware of the licensing agreement)
Yeah this is license violation, but pretty minor, very common, and harmless (assuming they do release the source now that they are made aware of the licensing agreement)
They violated every other clause of the license.
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to "keep intact all notices".
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
> From my understanding, they didn't do any of these, and claimed the code as their own.
Where did they "claim the code" as their own? This project hasn't even launched yet. There is no published work for which they could do any of those things yet.
I'll get my pitchfork if the service is launched and they still haven't done these things.
Where did they "claim the code" as their own? This project hasn't even launched yet. There is no published work for which they could do any of those things yet.
I'll get my pitchfork if the service is launched and they still haven't done these things.
This is all in Mastodan's blog post. It hasn't officially launched, but was made public for a bit, people signed up. It was clearly just a Mastodan fork, and it had a terms of service with this in it:
Unless otherwise indicated, the Site is our proprietary property and all source code, databases, functionality, software, website designs, audio, video, text, photographs, and graphics on the Site (collectively, the “Content”) and the trademarks, service marks, and logos contained therein (the “Marks”) are owned or controlled by us or licensed to us, and are protected by copyright and trademark laws and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws of the United States, foreign jurisdictions, and international conventions.Mastadon: "Trump is using our software!"
Also Mastadon: "Lol Trumps social media site got hacked!"
Also Also Mastadon: "Changes to the look and feel of the site violate our license!"
OK that's not encouraging anyone to use their software. I have a feeling this is much more a knee jerk reaction to who is using their software rather than a well thought out complaint.
I think the most important part of this debacle is that the site itself wasn't supposed to be launched. This is the equivalent of someone leaking footage of (lets say) a baseball being thrown at a truck window, and the window breaking, and everyone going "oh well that's obviously rubbish" in Jeremy Clarkson's voice. Nevermind that the truck was obviously a mock-up.
Also Mastadon: "Lol Trumps social media site got hacked!"
Also Also Mastadon: "Changes to the look and feel of the site violate our license!"
OK that's not encouraging anyone to use their software. I have a feeling this is much more a knee jerk reaction to who is using their software rather than a well thought out complaint.
I think the most important part of this debacle is that the site itself wasn't supposed to be launched. This is the equivalent of someone leaking footage of (lets say) a baseball being thrown at a truck window, and the window breaking, and everyone going "oh well that's obviously rubbish" in Jeremy Clarkson's voice. Nevermind that the truck was obviously a mock-up.
Ethereum classic moment for mastodon
Petty.
Calling a company out for breaking copyright law is not "petty". I suspect you only view it that way because of who is involved
I suspect Mastodon is laying on the "big bad Trump" a little thick, here, but yes. I'm on the side of the GPL, not Trump or Mastodon, so all I want is Free Software licences to be respected.
I wondered how he could've developed a social network in such a short time frame.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was true, given his track record l.
It's not that hard to develop a “social network”; it's basically just a web front-end to a database. The hard part is making it good, but if you have enough humans working behind the scenes, that can come later.
Obviously developing a social network that is production ready and scales isn't done in 3 months.
So what's your point?
I could develop a social network that “scales” in way less than three months, just working alone. A few days for the web front-end (with a few days of tweaking a bit later, and then a week of actually making it work). A couple of weeks for the ActivityPub implementation. Five minutes… perhaps 15, if I want to double-check my work, for the SQLite database. Then another week of making sure everything fit together nicely; might be able to do it in two months, actually.
It wouldn't be pretty, and it wouldn't cache images locally (which is a problem from a privacy point of view), but it would work, and it would scale just as well as the rest of the Fediverse.
It wouldn't be pretty, and it wouldn't cache images locally (which is a problem from a privacy point of view), but it would work, and it would scale just as well as the rest of the Fediverse.
"but the reality of working on free software is that you give up the possibility of choosing who can and cannot use it from the get-go"
I always wonder why wokeism hasn't reached software licenses yet?
Just imagine the anger when it would come to a FOSS dev team's attention that <insert-evil-group> is using their product, successfully even...
"of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use"
I mean just the effort involved by a lot of people in the dev community to dig something up:
"findings that various people have presented to us,"
While the stated proprietary licensing text could be easily just a beta version, or totally fine anyways (I'm not a lawyer), but definitely something other projects would get a pass for. You know, a nicely written e-mail not making any fuzz.
In a way this fuzz mastodon makes out of it, is exactly the PR a Trump would want, no?
I always wonder why wokeism hasn't reached software licenses yet?
Just imagine the anger when it would come to a FOSS dev team's attention that <insert-evil-group> is using their product, successfully even...
"of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use"
I mean just the effort involved by a lot of people in the dev community to dig something up:
"findings that various people have presented to us,"
While the stated proprietary licensing text could be easily just a beta version, or totally fine anyways (I'm not a lawyer), but definitely something other projects would get a pass for. You know, a nicely written e-mail not making any fuzz.
In a way this fuzz mastodon makes out of it, is exactly the PR a Trump would want, no?
> Just imagine the anger when it would come to a FOSS dev team's attention that <insert-evil-group> is using their product, successfully even...
Err, this is something a lot of FOSS dev' have been complaining about actually. There has been complain in the past directed toward Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon and many top-100 company for using free software without contributing anything back (code or financial support), or again, because they are disliked by the original FOSS team.
This "woke" word has been thrown around left and right at this point and is completely nonsensical, like SJW before that.
Err, this is something a lot of FOSS dev' have been complaining about actually. There has been complain in the past directed toward Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon and many top-100 company for using free software without contributing anything back (code or financial support), or again, because they are disliked by the original FOSS team.
This "woke" word has been thrown around left and right at this point and is completely nonsensical, like SJW before that.
> I always wonder why wokeism hasn't reached software licenses yet?
The license you’re waiting for was JSLint. It was brilliant and the effect it had on users was a hilarious thing to behold:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762035
Nothing involving Trump’s projects will provoke the same sort of hilarity. A desire to avoid litigation on the part of the user, combined with at least a minimal, superficial concern over good and evil, are necessary for the gag to work.
The license you’re waiting for was JSLint. It was brilliant and the effect it had on users was a hilarious thing to behold:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762035
Nothing involving Trump’s projects will provoke the same sort of hilarity. A desire to avoid litigation on the part of the user, combined with at least a minimal, superficial concern over good and evil, are necessary for the gag to work.
If Mastodon has a weak history of enforcing their license to other organizations, does it weaken the case? I'm wondering if selective enforcement in the software-licensing world hurts the authority or credibility of a license, in the eyes of the law.
My wondering was somewhat inspired by the way Nintendo aggressively polices the appearance of its video game trademarks on places like YouTube and basically the rest of the internet. I hear an argument is that if they don't aggressively enforce their trademark policing, their legal position wouldn't be as strong if they want to pursue a big violation in the future.